M
michaelp
Guest
All that I asked is which one would you rather have.
Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?
- Status
M
michaelp
Guest
Me too. Because it is more significant for the purpose of speading the Gospel. That is why I don’t have much of a problem with the other books taking time to become “universally” recognized. If you have the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus, that will keep you busy for years. (athough, I do believe the other books are extremely important!! Except for 3 John–God could have left that out and I probebly would not notice in practice or doctrine–but hey . . . He’s the Boss!!
)Michael
K
Katholikos
Guest
Right on! “At first a local church would have only a few apostolic letters and perhaps one or two gospels” (RSV Intro to the NT).
Christians could not “search the Scriptures” the way they were expected to after the 16th century and “the Bible Only” became the standard method for determining doctrine and morals for Protest-ants.
JMJ Jay
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I agree. They had access because they were taught by apostolical men. The teachings of apostolical men was then and remains today a certain source of Christian doctrine.
St. Athanasius: “Had these expositions of theirs [the Arians] proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and … Bishops of the East, or Julius and Liberius of Rome, … with others of the same opinions as these;–there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements, for the character of APOSTOLICAL MEN is sincere and INCAPABLE OF FRAUD” Ad Episcopos 8(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:227
K
Katholikos
Guest
Another consideration for Sola Scriptura Protestants: For centuries, the skins of about 422 animals and years of hard labor were required to produce a single copy of the Bible by hand, costing about $500,000 in today’s dollars (source: Where We Got the Bible, audio tape, Clifton Bower).
And about ninety percent of all the people in the world couldn’t read. The Catholic Church copied the Bible by hand for fifteen centuries until the printing press was invented. Had not been for the Church, we’d have no Bible. Monks devoted their entire lives to copying the text by hand, by candlelight.
The fragile papyrus originals did not survive antiquity. Our earliest nearly complete manuscripts date from the fourth century. They are copies of copies of copies – no one knows how many generations of copies of manuscripts and fragments intervened between those that survived and the originals.
How can Protestants be sure the copies – all made by Catholic hands – are the same as the originals? Maybe we changed the Scriptures - heh heh
. Why would a Protestant consider anything copied by a Catholic “the pure, inerrant Word of God”?
Jay Damien
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
And about ninety percent of all the people in the world couldn’t read. The Catholic Church copied the Bible by hand for fifteen centuries until the printing press was invented. Had not been for the Church, we’d have no Bible. Monks devoted their entire lives to copying the text by hand, by candlelight.
The fragile papyrus originals did not survive antiquity. Our earliest nearly complete manuscripts date from the fourth century. They are copies of copies of copies – no one knows how many generations of copies of manuscripts and fragments intervened between those that survived and the originals.
How can Protestants be sure the copies – all made by Catholic hands – are the same as the originals? Maybe we changed the Scriptures - heh heh
. Why would a Protestant consider anything copied by a Catholic “the pure, inerrant Word of God”?Jay Damien
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
M
michaelp
Guest
This is an assumption based upon the doctrine of apostolic succession that does not effect what I have said. Even if you believe in apostolic succession, the majority of the NT was still accessable to most of the early Church.
Michael
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
And my answer was any one of them will due, so long as I have recourse to full deposit of faith of Christ’s Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth.”
M
michaelp
Guest
Although this is a great subject to talk about, Sola Scriptura is not the subject of this post. I know that it has ultimate implications for the Catholic argument against it, but this quote does not add to or take away from my original post.Another consideration for Sola Scriptura Protestants: For centuries, the skins of about 422 animals and years of hard labor were required to produce a single copy of the Bible by hand, costing about $500,000 in today’s dollars (source: Where We Got the Bible, audio tape, Clifton Bower).
And about ninety percent of all the people in the world couldn’t read. The Catholic Church copied the Bible by hand for fifteen centuries until the printing press was invented. Had not been for the Church, we’d have no Bible. Monks devoted their entire lives to copying the text by hand, by candlelight.
The fragile papyrus originals did not survive antiquity. Our earliest nearly complete manuscripts date from the fourth century. They are copies of copies of copies – no one knows how many generations of copies of manuscripts and fragments intervened between those that survived and the originals.
How can Protestants be sure the copies – all made by Catholic hands – are the same as the originals? Maybe we changed the Scriptures - heh heh
Jay Damien
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
Again, I am not trying to argue anything here except that the early Church had access to most of the NT.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Ummm. . . OK. Thanks.
Michael
K
Katholikos
Guest
Christians (Catholics) of the first centuries may have at one time or another heard writings which circulated among the local churches that they may or may not have thought were scripture at the time they were read aloud to them. They also heard proclaimed a great deal of correspondence and other documents from people like Ignatius of Antioch et al. which was not collected and included in the NT. They did not have a “New Testament” per se nor could they study it as Sola Scriptura requires. They heard a series of Christian writings read to them during the Liturgy (Mass) – period. They did not have a cohesive set of Christian scriptures that they knew as “the Word of God” until much later. They learned their doctrines and moral teachings not from a book but from the Church which Christ founded for the salvation of the world. Many of them died for the Faith.
Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. It was never “Scripture Alone.” It was always the Church and the Septuagint, then the Church and her writings which she called the NT, and the Church and her Bible.
JMJ Jay
M
michaelp
Guest
Jay, I am not trying to promote sola scriptura here. That is the subject of another thread. All that I am saying still stands and most agree that the majority of the early church had the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus by the end of the first century. This is grossly misrepresented on this site by people saying that people did not have the NT until the 3rd or 4th century. True, there were debates about certian books, but there was nearly univeral agreement about 80% of the NT books.
I know that this has implications for you and your polemic against sola scriptura, and I respect that, but you must represent the facts accurately. I am not saying that you don’t, but many people on this site are getting misinformation. This misinformation is used in sola scriptura debates ad nauseam and it is misleading.
It is always best to represent the postition of those with whom you disagree accurately. Otherwise, all you are doing is fooling others and yourself by building straw men arguments which may persuade the niave, but not the informed.
Michael
K
Katholikos
Guest
michaelp wrote:
Can you please explain what your statement means?
You accused Catholics of misrepresenting the truth – you said we were “wrong,” “misleading,” “uninformed,” and told us we “mutilate the truth,” “engage in folk theology,” (whatever that is) and need to study. I confess I was a little miffed by your langauge. It’s not the language of a person interested in thoughtful discussion.
If your point was not that early Christians had the scriptures and that was all they needed (Sola Scriptura), what was your point?
JMJ Jay
I again state as absolute, verifiable historical fact that “the Church did not have the NT until the end of the 4th Century.” No collection of approved, canonical writings called the NT existed before that date.
And you now say, well, you had 80% of it?
All that was necessary for the establishment of the early church was for Christ to found it and the Holy Spirit to arrive to empower and guide it.
Can you please explain what your statement means?
You accused Catholics of misrepresenting the truth – you said we were “wrong,” “misleading,” “uninformed,” and told us we “mutilate the truth,” “engage in folk theology,” (whatever that is) and need to study. I confess I was a little miffed by your langauge. It’s not the language of a person interested in thoughtful discussion.
If your point was not that early Christians had the scriptures and that was all they needed (Sola Scriptura), what was your point?
JMJ Jay
M
michaelp
Guest
I agree that they did not have a document called the “New Testament” but this is not part of my argument and misleading as to what I am saying. They had 80% of the letters that make up our current NT. That is quite a bit. The fact that they had the Gospels, Pauline corpus, and Acts tells us that they were very concerned and dilegent to get these letters (which both Peter and Paul affirm as inspired) in circulation.
And of course the Holy Spirit uses information for people to believe. Faith is useless without content. This content was availible early on through the traditions of the apostles and the NT Scriptures the majority of which was availible to all the church.
Not sure which statement.
Believe me, I did not mean to advance the theory that all people on this site were promoting this theory. But many are. It is misleading and uninformed. I did not say that you mutilate the truth, but those who promote this theory without knowledge do.
I will try to tone it down on my terminology. I think that you are right, some of my words could have been better chosen.
It does have implications for your arguments about sola scriptura, but my purpose is not to engage in this debate directly since I have already done so on numereous occasions.
See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&highlight=michaelp
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890&highlight=michaelp
Again, I am sorry for the offensive language.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Folk theology is primarily 'hear-say" theology. It is not based on original research, but comes by way of tradition alone. Like if someone were to believe that “God helps those who help themselves” was in Scripture. Most people believe it is, but they have never researched it themselves.
Most people are by nature “folktheologians” because it is very easy to come by and take very little effort to be believed. It is dangerous because people dogmatically hold to traditions more than they do information that they come by on their own. We all do it to varying degrees. But there is a difference in being a folk theologian and having folk theology. Being a folk theologian is a methodology that many people have adopted.
Hope this helps,
Michael
T
twf
Guest
Michael: Perhaps it is not a big deal to you, but many Protestants would be shocked to learn that not all Christian churches agree on the Canon of Scripture…there are even some execptions regarding the New Testament. (As I mentioned earlier, I have heard that some Syriac communities reject Revelation, and that Ethiopia considers Clement canon). Does this bother you? Do you think it is important that all Christians have the same canon? The Eastern Orthodox Church itself does not have a single canon of the Old Testament. (Though all churches within this communion do use the Catholic/Protestant NT Canon). To them, the exact canon of the OT is not crucial as they do not see the Bible as the final authority. Their faith is based upon Scriptures, the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium, and their Sacred Tradition (which is mainly contained within the Fathers and the Councils). For Protestants, however, it is of utmost importance to know which books are canon, because if you are missing any books, or include any books that should not be included, you are not getting the full correct picture. You may not see it as essential that Revelation is included…but other Protestants would.
Part of my point before, however, was that you have no way of knowing that the Catholic NT Canon, which you use, is completely correct. There are bound to be various doctrines in certain Protestant churches that are primarily based upon disputed books of the NT.
By the way, can anyone verify whether or not the Ethiopian Church does indeed venerate Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians as canon?
Part of my point before, however, was that you have no way of knowing that the Catholic NT Canon, which you use, is completely correct. There are bound to be various doctrines in certain Protestant churches that are primarily based upon disputed books of the NT.
By the way, can anyone verify whether or not the Ethiopian Church does indeed venerate Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians as canon?
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear MichaelP,
Maybe it’s my Protestant background, but I can see where you are coming from, and I agree with you. This discussion is nothing more than an assertion that most people had 80% of the materials that constitute the NT. To this, I wholeheartedly agree. Still, I think there is also truth to Katholikos’ assertion that the NT did not exist until the fourth century, if by that is meant that the entire NT as the collection of books we know today did not exist until the fourth century.
I also understand, unlike some here I guess, that this discussion is not about whether or not the Church hierarchy was needed at the same time to fully explicate these Scriptures to the common folk.
God bless,
Greg
Maybe it’s my Protestant background, but I can see where you are coming from, and I agree with you. This discussion is nothing more than an assertion that most people had 80% of the materials that constitute the NT. To this, I wholeheartedly agree. Still, I think there is also truth to Katholikos’ assertion that the NT did not exist until the fourth century, if by that is meant that the entire NT as the collection of books we know today did not exist until the fourth century.
I also understand, unlike some here I guess, that this discussion is not about whether or not the Church hierarchy was needed at the same time to fully explicate these Scriptures to the common folk.
God bless,
Greg
R
RNRobert
Guest
I read somewhere of this illiterate man who could hear a sermon or speech and repeat it verbatim days later.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yeah Mike…
I suppose that they just bopped down to the nearest Kinko’s and had a bunch of copies run off. You make it sound like they had a ton of copies and that communication was as instant as it is today. That just wasn’t the case. Travel was slow…very slow compared to today, so just how can anyone claim that there was consensus about the canon in Paul’s day or that the NT was available to the populace.
Naturally they did have some access to the Alexandrian OT (since it was in Greek), but again, there was no fast & convenient copying. So regardless of whatever sources you have studied…the simple common sense of history proves it doubtful at best and ludicrous lies at worst. I’m unsure which. I don’t see how in the world you can claim it is “absolutely wrong” w/a clear conscience when all these practical considerations make your case less than certain off the top.
We don’t even wanna get into the scriptural basis for the fact that there was oral tradition handed down by the apostles. (See John 21:25 & Acts 20:35) Or the fact that even the apostle Jude quoted from Jewish traditional writings in his epistle that is defined canon.
Also, why would St.Paul tell the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions… and to avoid anyone who rejects those traditions(2 Thess 2:15 & 3:6)
“Folk theology” my foot…
I just don’t see your case my friend.
:bible1: :banghead:
J
JOE_OBERR
Guest
Hello Michaelp,
You said “In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.”
This is not correct as the Gospel’s source is not Scripture. The Gospel, the oral Word of God, was taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the apostles who then followed Jesus’ command to preach this Gospel.
The Gospel consists of the Creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer. Only Sacred Tradition contains the entire Word of God, and this was transmitted orally by the apostles, by their example and the institutions they founded. This is the part that contains doctrine that is clear and explicit. The other way the Gospel was handed on was through the written Word of God in Scripture. Scripture, however, contains salvation history in a narrative form, it is not a catechism nor or any of its teachings clear.
Scripture is also used to support and illumine the Church teachings contained in the oral Word of God transmitted through Sacred Tradition. But it is not the primary source of teachings as that is not its intended purpose.
That is why Jesus told the apostles to preach the Gospel and those who would believe and be baptized would be saved, those who would not believe the apostles and their successors in the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth), would be condemned. So we have to listen to the leaders of the Church Jesus founded to learn the Gospel.
No one in 2,000 years has learned the full Gospel by reading Scripture alone as it does not contain all the teachings contained in oral Word of God (Sacred Tradition). It contains the written Word which is primarily salvation history and can also be used to illumine the teachings in the oral Word.
Joe
You said “In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.”
This is not correct as the Gospel’s source is not Scripture. The Gospel, the oral Word of God, was taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the apostles who then followed Jesus’ command to preach this Gospel.
The Gospel consists of the Creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer. Only Sacred Tradition contains the entire Word of God, and this was transmitted orally by the apostles, by their example and the institutions they founded. This is the part that contains doctrine that is clear and explicit. The other way the Gospel was handed on was through the written Word of God in Scripture. Scripture, however, contains salvation history in a narrative form, it is not a catechism nor or any of its teachings clear.
Scripture is also used to support and illumine the Church teachings contained in the oral Word of God transmitted through Sacred Tradition. But it is not the primary source of teachings as that is not its intended purpose.
That is why Jesus told the apostles to preach the Gospel and those who would believe and be baptized would be saved, those who would not believe the apostles and their successors in the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth), would be condemned. So we have to listen to the leaders of the Church Jesus founded to learn the Gospel.
No one in 2,000 years has learned the full Gospel by reading Scripture alone as it does not contain all the teachings contained in oral Word of God (Sacred Tradition). It contains the written Word which is primarily salvation history and can also be used to illumine the teachings in the oral Word.
Joe
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Michael! Thanks for starting this thread - it seems like a great one with lots of opportunity to learn. I have a question regarding the bolded statement above. In addition to having 80% of the New Testament (as it eventually came to be defined by the Catholic Church), how much other stuff was out their unable to be recognized as Scripture or not? Was there more uninspired writings claiming to be inspired than there was actual Scripture? I mean the NT is about 400 pages total. Say about 300 pages were “well known” and not in dispute. How much “other” stuff was in contention? 1000 pages? 10,000? Does anybody really know?
thanks-
Phil
- Status