Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[Philthy]

redeemed1:

Excuse me but by the end of the second century the canon was pretty much established. You err in thinking that the rcc has dibbs on the Scriptures. They do not. No one can bind God’s Word but Him, and thankfully, thanks to the Lord, His Holy Spirit, and the early “Christians”, we do have it today, but it isn’t solely due to the Rcc, it is due to God preserving His Word; the Ultimate Authority. Amen?

Not Amen. If God succeeded in “preserving His word” why do I have more books in my bible than you do? Not to mention JWs and Mormons. One of us is wrong, and either way, God hasn’t “preserved” his Word in the sense that you mean it. what you’re doing is simply assigning to God, independent of the Church, in preserving his word - that sounds great but isn’t what happened.

Phil

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

OK, so it is not there in any hard form. Got it. So we just must assume that it existed without any evidence?

No, Michael, it IS in “hard form.” It exists in documents like the Didache, the epistles of Clement and Polycarp, the asides of people like Iraeneus, and so on.

michaelp:

I don’t really even have to have a book. But what I am looking for is this concept that some “full deposit” of infallible Tradition was handed from one person to the next. I do believe that there were teachings from the apostles that were handed down and down and down etc.

And that’s what we call tradition.

michaelp:

But I believe that there is no reason to believe that this was the or even a form in which God wanted His word to be preserved for the last 2000 years. .

You’ll have to take that up with God. Clearly, Christ left us no written documents. His teaching was all oral. And clearly, he chose at least some Apostles who were illiterate (Peter, for example.)

michaelp:

Expecially though some succession of bishops who are the sole carriers of this tradition…

You have made a mistake – you confound the Tradition with the Magesterium.

Tradition is the message the Apostles left, along with peripheral matters (like how John arrived at the number 666.) The Magisterium is the authority to interpret and transmit that message.

michaelp:

I believe that this is why we have the Scriptures. We can be more certian that we are going to the sourse of their teaching rather than trying to extract them from the Church fathers.

Then you have a real problem, because Scripture is what Tradition says it is – the books of the New Testament are known to be genuine and inspired because of Tradition!

michaelp:

But how was Irenaeus to tell the difference between what was speculation and what was not. He does not make this distinction that you would expect if he understood this concept of opinion and infallible tradition that he was given or at least knew about.

Michael, you do love to play the fool!

How do YOU know the difference between you speculations and the doctrine of your church? Are you not in control of your own intelect?

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

This is question begging that ignores the evidence that I presented that the early church was in agreement and had access to 80% of the NT and believed them to be inspired.

Maybe I can approach it this way. Do you know of any Church Father who rejected the Gospels, Acts, or the Pauline corpus? If so, could you name them and site examples?

Michael

Good thought to head in this direction Michael, but faulty nonetheless. The assumption that what remains of historical record is, in fact, representative of GENERAL thought is simply an assumption that a historian would have to make since they will never be able to take a “poll” of the people of the time. Limiting the discussion to ECFs does not, of necessity, eliminate this unknown.

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Good thought to head in this direction Michael, but faulty nonetheless. The assumption that what remains of historical record is, in fact, representative of GENERAL thought is simply an assumption that a historian would have to make since they will never be able to take a “poll” of the people of the time. Limiting the discussion to ECFs does not, of necessity, eliminate this unknown.

But you fail to realize. I am not looking for infallible evidence for this. I just need to look generally at the concensus and take this into account. The weight of evidence tells me that the early Church had access to and believed that the Gospels Acts, and the Pauline corpus was inspired. There is no Church father who speaks otherwise. There is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I am on safe ground.

Besides all of this. Didn’t the deposit of truth handed on by the Apostles have the canon list? Or was the deposit not inclusive of this in the early Church? If this is the case, how can anyone say that the full deposit of traditions was handed off from the beginning? In other words, if they had “all of it” was the canon included?

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

But you fail to realize. I am not looking for infallible evidence for this. I just need to look generally at the concensus and take this into account. The weight of evidence tells me that the early Church had access to and believed that the Gospels Acts, and the Pauline corpus was inspired. There is no Church father who speaks otherwise. There is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I am on safe ground.

You’re looking where the light is again. When you say Church Fathers, do you include people like Valintinius or Marcion?

Those who were heterodox are not included in the list of Church Fathers – so you have a circular argument.

Who were the Church Fathers? "The orthodox leaders of the Church. What did they believe? What we believe today. So how could you find a “Church Father” who DOESN’T believe in the Gospels?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michaelp:

Besides all of this. Didn’t the deposit of truth handed on by the Apostles have the canon list? Or was the deposit not inclusive of this in the early Church? If this is the case, how can anyone say that the full deposit of traditions was handed off from the beginning? In other words, if they had “all of it” was the canon included?

Do you have a canon list by an Apostle that the rest of the world hasn’t seen?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re-read your own argument – the canon is based on Tradition, not on a list contained in Scripture!!

Now, if tradition is invalid, how can the Canon be valid? And if the Canon is invalid, what’s left?

 

[michaelp]

No, Michael, it IS in “hard form.” It exists in documents like the Didache, the epistles of Clement and Polycarp, the asides of people like Iraeneus, and so on.

So all of these documents are inspired and contain the full deposit of Tradition? If not, how do you know which parts are and which parts are not part of this deposit? And how come these authors do not make a clear distinction betweeen their opinions and the deposit that they were handed? This is what you would expect, isn’t it?

And that’s what we call tradition.

OK, then where is the concept of an infallible tradition that is passed on through a succession of bishops taught? Your concept of tradition is more than they can bear.

You’ll have to take that up with God. Clearly, Christ left us no written documents. His teaching was all oral. And clearly, he chose at least some Apostles who were illiterate (Peter, for example.)

So were the Prophets, but they wrote them down so that they could be preserved. In fact, when they got lost, no one knew the word of God.

You have made a mistake – you confound the Tradition with the Magesterium.

Tradition is the message the Apostles left, along with peripheral matters (like how John arrived at the number 666.) The Magisterium is the authority to interpret and transmit that message.

It still works out the same. They are the carriers of this tradition, not us.

BTW: There is new compelling evidence that the John worte 616 rather than 666 and this was changed early on. A new major manuscript has been found on this. It is the earliest one on Rev in existence. Until now (although we have very few early manuscripts on Rev, there was only one other known occurance of this variant. There is a major article by one of the world top text critics being written on this. What would that do to all the ink that has been spilled on this issue? (Although, you may not have the freedom to consider the new evidence since the Magisterium may have spoken on this in one way or another). It is interesting though.

Then you have a real problem, because Scripture is what Tradition says it is – the books of the New Testament are known to be genuine and inspired because of Tradition!

They are known to be inspired because they were written by the Apostles. That is it.

Michael, you do love to play the fool!

How do YOU know the difference between you speculations and the doctrine of your church? Are you not in control of your own intelect?

I am really not playing the fool. The early church fathers do not make a distinction between their opinion and this “deposit” that you say they recieved even though they knew the difference (according to your theory).

Michael

 

[michaelp]

You’re looking where the light is again. When you say Church Fathers, do you include people like Valintinius or Marcion?

Those who were heterodox are not included in the list of Church Fathers – so you have a circular argument.

Who were the Church Fathers? "The orthodox leaders of the Church. What did they believe? What we believe today. So how could you find a “Church Father” who DOESN’T believe in the Gospels?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

That does make sense. I do understand. But, the fact still remains that none of the early writers disputed these books.

Do you have a canon list by an Apostle that the rest of the world hasn’t seen?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re-read your own argument – the canon is based on Tradition, not on a list contained in Scripture!!

Why didn’t the early Fathers then draw upon this deposit and plainly say what the canon was if they already knew. This might be something important to talk about. Expecially since, according to your studies, the Church was in mayham as to what was supposed to be included in Scripture for the first 400 years. Why did they sit on this for 400 years?

Now, if tradition is invalid, how can the Canon be valid? And if the Canon is invalid, what’s left?

Traditions is ultimately based on the opinion of and interpretation of those who recieve it, and so is the canon.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

So all of these documents are inspired and contain the full deposit of Tradition? If not, how do you know which parts are and which parts are not part of this deposit?

By their origin – when an ancient writer speaks of what an Apostle taught, he talks about tradition. When he makes his own speculation, that’s not.

michaelp:

And how come these authors do not make a clear distinction betweeen their opinions and the deposit that they were handed? This is what you would expect, isn’t it?

No, I would not. I would expect them to abide by the customs and practices of their era – where people often mixed opinion and facts.

You might as well ask, “Why didn’t Jesus Himself write the New Testament? Why didn’t He lay out His teaching in an ABC fomat, with illustrations, an index and a bibliography?”

michaelp:

OK, then where is the concept of an infallible tradition that is passed on through a succession of bishops taught? Your concept of tradition is more than they can bear. ?

You still don’t quite get it – Tradition is what was handed down. The bishops are licensed to teach, and they teach based on Tradition and Scripture.

Remember, these are the SAME bishops who (in their era) selected which books were in the canon and which weren’t – when you talk about inspired, infallible Scripture – you have to take THEIR word for it!

michaelp:

So were the Prophets, but they wrote them down so that they could be preserved. In fact, when they got lost, no one knew the word of God.

But Jesus didn’t, now did He?

michaelp:

BTW: There is new compelling evidence that the John worte 616 rather than 666 and this was changed early on. A new major manuscript has been found on this. It is the earliest one on Rev in existence. Until now (although we have very few early manuscripts on Rev, there was only one other known occurance of this variant. There is a major article by one of the world top text critics being written on this. What would that do to all the ink that has been spilled on this issue? (Although, you may not have the freedom to consider the new evidence since the Magisterium may have spoken on this in one way or another). It is interesting though.

I’m not sure what “new” manuscript you’re speaking of. The earliest LATIN manuscripts have the number of the beast as 616 – and it has long been pointed out that if you take the Greek form of Nero’s name (and Revelation was written in Greek) and apply the Pythagorian system, you get 666, but if you take the LATIN fom, you get 616.

michaelp:

They are known to be inspired because they were written by the Apostles. That is it.

Like the Apostles Luke and Mark? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

michaelp:

I am really not playing the fool. The early church fathers do not make a distinction between their opinion and this “deposit” that you say they recieved even though they knew the difference (according to your theory).

Michael

What “theory?”

You are applying modern standards to ancient writers. When the books of the New Testament were written, they didn’t even leave spaces between words, or have punctuation marks, let alone have our modern standards of organization and development.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

That does make sense. I do understand. But, the fact still remains that none of the early writers disputed these books.

That’s not true – many did, but admittedly, not many of their writings have not come down to us, because they were not preserved by the orthodox Church.

We DO, however have many writings by orthodox sources – including Apostles – that there WERE people who taught error, and who sought to discredit the teachings of the Apostles.

And that is evidence that these books WERE disputed.

Add that to the fact that we also have generally accepted writers who argued for books that are NOT in the Canon, and you begin to get the picture.

michaelp:

Why didn’t the early Fathers then draw upon this deposit and plainly say what the canon was if they already knew. This might be something important to talk about. Expecially since, according to your studies, the Church was in mayham as to what was supposed to be included in Scripture for the first 400 years. Why did they sit on this for 400 years?

Why didn’t they invent the printing press, or the compass?

They first had to draw together all the documents, both those that would later be in the Canon, and those that made up Tradition. And in the process, they had to debate the authenticity and orthodoxy of each – often times exhaustively.

And while they were doing that, they had to wrestle with some serious heresies.

And, let’s remember, they didn’t have the benefit of hindsight. If, for example, Paul had known his epistles were going to wind up in the Bible, don’t you think he would have explained in detail some things he only glossed over?

Similarly, the early Church did not know of the travails and problems ahead. No one in the Second Century, for example, could look ahead to the Fourth Century and see the final version of the New Testament.

michaelp:

Traditions is ultimately based on the opinion of and interpretation of those who recieve it, and so is the canon.

Michael

And therefore if you cannot trust Tradition, you cannot trust Scripture, either.

 

[michaelp]

By their origin – when an ancient writer speaks of what an Apostle taught, he talks about tradition. When he makes his own speculation, that’s not.

OK, then. So if I go through the Apostolic fathers, the only thing that I can say for certian is that when they say something like “the apostle told me . . .” then that is inspired tradition? All else is opinion.

And if I were to extract all of these statements, I would get the FULL deposit? If not, how do we know this full deposit existed?

No, I would not. I would expect them to abide by the customs and practices of their era – where people often mixed opinion and facts.

How can you tell the differnce then?

You might as well ask, “Why didn’t Jesus Himself write the New Testament? Why didn’t He lay out His teaching in an ABC fomat, with illustrations, an index and a bibliography?”

I don’t see the relevance.

You still don’t quite get it – Tradition is what was handed down. The bishops are licensed to teach, and they teach based on Tradition and Scripture.

Tradition is simply teachings. This speaks nothing to the infallibility of the teachings, the full content of them in some “deposit” that is never spoken of just seems to be assumed later for pragmatic reasons to battle the heritics, and it speaks nothing about the necessary succession of bishops to carry this traditions. You see, it is the justification of the system that I have problems with, not the pragmatics.

Remember, these are the SAME bishops who (in their era) selected which books were in the canon and which weren’t – when you talk about inspired, infallible Scripture – you have to take THEIR word for it

This is question begging since I don’t think they selected that which did not alread exist. I believe the NT, not based upon the word of the Church fathers alone, but based upon the evidence. Their opinion is just one aspect of it.

But Jesus didn’t, now did He?

I don’t understand.

I’m not sure what “new” manuscript you’re speaking of. The earliest LATIN manuscripts have the number of the beast as 616 – and it has long been pointed out that if you take the Greek form of Nero’s name (and Revelation was written in Greek) and apply the Pythagorian system, you get 666, but if you take the LATIN fom, you get 616.

No one knows except those who are involved right now. It is the first Greek manuscript that has been found with 616.

Like the Apostles Luke and Mark? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

But they were under the Apostles who were verified spokesmen for God (2 Cor 12:12). If they were not supposed to be taken as inspired, the apostles (Peter or Paul) would have said something.

What “theory?”

You are applying modern standards to ancient writers. When the books of the New Testament were written, they didn’t even leave spaces between words, or have punctuation marks, let alone have our modern standards of organization and development.

This is just modern standards of rational though that all people who are created in the image of God have used. It is called the justification of knowledge. I don’t just believe something because it is pragmatic or others believe it. I have to look at the evidence and the reasons for the belief and make a judgement. I think that all people of all time have used this criteria. In other words, it did not come into existence in “modern times.”

 

[michaelp]

That’s not true – many did, but admittedly, not many of their writings have not come down to us, because they were not preserved by the orthodox Church.

We DO, however have many writings by orthodox sources – including Apostles – that there WERE people who taught error, and who sought to discredit the teachings of the Apostles.

Who? That is what I am looking for. Where is the evidence that there was debate about the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus in the first century, second century, and third. After you compile this, look and examine their reasons for rejection, and compare these few writers to the mountian of evidence to the contrary

Why didn’t they invent the printing press, or the compass?

This does not make any sense and is an insufficient answer. You really need to think that question through again.

Similarly, the early Church did not know of the travails and problems ahead. No one in the Second Century, for example, could look ahead to the Fourth Century and see the final version of the New Testament.

But you are making the aguement that the NT was in mayham FROM THE VERY BEGINNING!

And therefore if you cannot trust Tradition, you cannot trust Scripture, either.

I can trust each to the degree that the evidence allows me to trust them. That is all. There is great evidence that the Apostles wrote the NT and that they were inspired, and there is not very much (as this thread is showing) that there was a second infallible avenue though which God travelled other than Scripture.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

OK, then. So if I go through the Apostolic fathers, the only thing that I can say for certian is that when they say something like “the apostle told me . . .” then that is inspired tradition? All else is opinion.

No. I think we already covered this – it was not the custom in ancient times for a writer to climb up on his desk and wave a red bandanna (like Sergeant Dophet, when covering a testable point) to make a distinction between opinion and fact.

michaelp:

And if I were to extract all of these statements, I would get the FULL deposit? If not, how do we know this full deposit existed?.

If you assembled every known document from ancient times that contained material traceable to the Apostles, you’d have a complete set, yes. And that would be a relatively large library.

michaelp:

Tradition is simply teachings?.

Yes – and so is Scripture…

michaelp:

This speaks nothing to the infallibility of the teachings, the full content of them in some “deposit” that is never spoken of just seems to be assumed later for pragmatic reasons to battle the heritics, and it speaks nothing about the necessary succession of bishops to carry this traditions. You see, it is the justification of the system that I have problems with, not the pragmatics.

I don’t know why you keep using the word “infallibility.” Tradition is teaching traceable to an Apostle. Scripture is the same thing, but simply accorded a somewhat greater reverence.

If you believe Scripture is inerrant, then you must accept that Tradition must carry the same warrant – because the books of the New Testament were selected based on Tradition.

michaelp:

This is question begging since I don’t think they selected that which did not alread exist. I believe the NT, not based upon the word of the Church fathers alone, but based upon the evidence. Their opinion is just one aspect of it…

What evidence? What proof do you have (that no one else in the world has) that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts?

michaelp:

No one knows except those who are involved right now. It is the first Greek manuscript that has been found with 616.

I’d be interested in learning more about it – the number 616 is common in early Latin manuscripts. Do you have a cite for this?

michaelp:

But they were under the Apostles who were verified spokesmen for God (2 Cor 12:12). If they were not supposed to be taken as inspired, the apostles (Peter or Paul) would have said something…

Were Peter and Paul alive when the Gospels of Luke and Mark were accepted into the Canon? Were they even alive when those Gosples were written?

michaelp:

This is just modern standards of rational though that all people who are created in the image of God have used…

Not always – many ancient documents are perfect puzzles to read. The ancients neither had the standards, nor the tools of organization we have.

And again, if perfect organization and clarity were the key – why didn’t Jesus Himself write the New Testament?

michaelp:

It is called the justification of knowledge. I don’t just believe something because it is pragmatic or others believe it. I have to look at the evidence and the reasons for the belief and make a judgement. I think that all people of all time have used this criteria. In other words, it did not come into existence in “modern times.”

I invite you to read some literal reproductions of ancient manuscripts. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[kepha1]

I can trust each to the degree that the evidence allows me to trust them. That is all. There is great evidence that the Apostles wrote the NT and that they were inspired, and there is not very much (as this thread is showing) that there was a second infallible avenue though which God travelled other than Scripture.

Michael, with all due respect, the only “evidence” you seem to accept is the evidence that suits your prejudices. I posted the time chart to refute the silly notion of 80% acceptance of the scriptures before the 2nd century, and you say it confirms it. Look at it again. You have fallen into the rap of over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible. Once again, Michael, THERE WAS NO 80% ACCEPTANCE OF NT WRITINGS BEFORE THE 2ND CENTURY AS INSPIRED. SOME, YES, BUT NOT 80%. Go back to the chart and count the ones that were quoted/accepted. And please note there is a difference between something that is inspired and something that is formally canonized.

Secondly, sir, you have typically dichotomized Tradition against Scripture. This is a heresy. I should remind you, that Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, not the other way around. Without Sacred Tradition, we would have no Bible at all.

Look in any Protestant study Bible. You should find that there was not one NT letter written for 23+ years, and there is no evidence that remotely suggests everyone new right away that it was inspired. What was the authority during this time? A living teaching Church, whose leaders, not individuals, were entrusted with the Gospel message. Where in the Bible is the Gospel message limited to non-existing scriptures? Such an absurd question addresses an equally absurd position.

Apostolic Succession is a Sacred Tradition. It is also in the Bible. Being in the Bible does not disqualify something from being a Sacred Tradition. The hard facts of history prove the unbroken line of the Popes, and every bishop on the planet today. The Anointing of the Sick is both a sacrament and a Sacred Tradition. It is also in the Bible. These and even the lesser traditions of the Church are rejected because of reformist world-view of Tradition and Scripture that is heretical and unhistorical. That is part of the reason why some non-Catholic Christians has, over the years, gone out of their way to re-write the facts of history. Truth won’t work for their agendas so lies are the only alternative.

When you separate the Bible from the Catholic Church, it’s no longer an inspired book. Name one “bible-church” that is the same, teaches the same, as it did according to the original reformers. There aren’t any. That is not a “bible-church.” It’s a man-made church based on a hi-jacked book tossing to and fro with every wind of doctrine.

kepha1

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Who? That is what I am looking for. Where is the evidence that there was debate about the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus in the first century, second century, and third. After you compile this, look and examine their reasons for rejection, and compare these few writers to the mountian of evidence to the contrary

If I do all you want, I might as well ship the text off to a publisher – you want me to write a book for you.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

But I believe I already mentioned Marcion and Valintinius, who were heretical leaders.

And let’s do something you should have done – read the Bible. In Revelation, John has seven letters to seven churches. Let’s see what he says:

2,2 "I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors. 4

hmmm . .looks like someone in Ephesus was running around and disputing the Apostolic teachings, right?

And 2,9

"I know your tribulation and poverty, but you are rich. 9 I know the slander of those who claim to be Jews and are not, but rather are members of the assembly of Satan.

Looks like Smyrna had a similar problem!!

And 2, 14-15

Yet I have a few things against you. You have some people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who instructed Balak to put a stumbling block before the Israelites: to eat food sacrificed to idols and to play the harlot.
15 Likewise, you also have some people who hold to the teaching of (the) Nicolaitans.

So Pergamum has a problem, too – and John even names the culprits!

Then there’s 2,20

Yet I hold this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, who teaches and misleads my servants to play the harlot and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 18

This Jezebel was causing some trouble in Thyatira, wasn’t she?

And in 3, 2-3

Be watchful and strengthen what is left, which is going to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3 Remember then how you accepted and heard; keep it, and repent. If you are not watchful, I will come like a thief, and you will never know at what hour I will come upon you.

Things aren’t so bright in Sardis, either!

And 3,9

Behold, I will make those of the assembly of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not, but are lying, behold I will make them come and fall prostrate at your feet, and they will realize that I love you.

Well, that was Philadelphia – six out of the seven churches addressed in Revelation have problems with false teachers!!

And that’s only the FIRST century!!

michaelp:

But you are making the aguement that the NT was in mayham FROM THE VERY BEGINNING!

No – there was no New Testament yet. The Church, however was struggling – you see how John has to caution six of seven churches in Revelation about false teaching.

The New Testament was the outcome of that struggle – pulling together the writings of the early Christians, separating out the false and not-so-important, and reaching agreement on the final 27 books was a long process.

michaelp:

I can trust each to the degree that the evidence allows me to trust them. That is all. There is great evidence that the Apostles wrote the NT and that they were inspired.

First of all, as I have pointed out, at least two of the New Testament authors (Mark and Luke) were not Apostles. And when you point out that they were associated with Apostles – you make the distinction that applies to tradition – it comes from Apostles or those who were associated with Apostles.

And how do you KNOW the Apostles wrote the Gosples of Matthew and John? Do you have signed copies of the originals? Your only assurance is that Tradition says those books were written by Apostles.

As for a “second infallible avenue,” that would be the New Testament – because Jesus Himself wrote nothing. His teaching was all oral. And the Apostles passed it on oraly. It was first written down a generation later – the earliest possible date for any New Testament document puts it some 20 to 25 years after the Resurection!

And, since Tradition was the method of sorting out and approving all the competing Christian texts, it is upon Tradition that Scripture depends.

 

[michaelp]

No. I think we already covered this – it was not the custom in ancient times for a writer to climb up on his desk and wave a red bandanna (like Sergeant Dophet, when covering a testable point) to make a distinction between opinion and fact.

So then, it is the decision of the later church to go back and say what is part of inspired tradition and what is not. This is question begging with no stadards but general concensus. At this point, the institutional Church would really just pick and choose what was part of inspired tradition and what is not.

If you assembled every known document from ancient times that contained material traceable to the Apostles, you’d have a complete set, yes. And that would be a relatively large library.

Why don’t we have this in book form somewhere. It would be very valuable wouldn’t it?

I don’t know why you keep using the word “infallibility.” Tradition is teaching traceable to an Apostle. Scripture is the same thing, but simply accorded a somewhat greater reverence.

Because you say that this tradition is on par with the Scripture. Scripture is inspired and infallible, then so is this tradition. I don’t have a problem saying that tradition is immensly valuable, but to say that it is infallible is where I need the justification.

If you believe Scripture is inerrant, then you must accept that Tradition must carry the same warrant – because the books of the New Testament were selected based on Tradition.

No, this is not necessary. I believe that the canon of Scripture that we contain is correct. But my belief is not infallible and it does not have to be. It just has to be based on the weight of evidences. How did the people of Christ’s day know which books belonged in the OT? Did they need some infallible statement of faith? No, they just trusted in the fallible traditions that they had recieved. They also trusted the God was in control of things and he would not have dropped the ball with regards to this.

What evidence? What proof do you have (that no one else in the world has) that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts?

Who said that I had this evidence that no one else had? I just look at the history of its acceptance, the manuscript evidence, the consistancy of the Scriptures and make a decision. It is not that hard. I know that God is sovereign. I don’t think that he is sitting on the edge of his throne wringing his hands saying. “why can’t people get the right books in that Bible.” He is in control.

I’d be interested in learning more about it – the number 616 is common in early Latin manuscripts. Do you have a cite for this?

In actuality, there are only about 20 professional text critics in the entire world (the few and proud!). One of them is writing a paper on this now. I don’t know when it is expected to get published.

Were Peter and Paul alive when the Gospels of Luke and Mark were accepted into the Canon? Were they even alive when those Gosples were written?

There was no “canon” at this time. Just inspired writings. And yes, both Peter and Paul were alive when there were written. How do I know? The weight of evidence compels me. Paul even quotes Luke as Scripture 1 Tim 5:18.

And again, if perfect organization and clarity were the key – why didn’t Jesus Himself write the New Testament?

Who said that was the key. If it were the key, God would have just written a systematic theology in the first place. I believe that God wants us to be dilegent and study hard. He wants us to stuggle though the issues.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Michael, with all due respect, the only “evidence” you seem to accept is the evidence that suits your prejudices.

But I have no necessary prejudice. I am not bound by my traditions. You are necessarily bound by yours. Even to consider that I might be correct is to go against your entire system. That is the great thing about being a non-catholic right now. I believe that I can judge these things more objectively. I have no love for any particular set of traditions. That is why I, at this point, am not affiliated with any. If Catholocism answers the questions, great! I will become Catholic. If it does not, I am bound by my conscious not to ascribe to it. I am just saying right now, there is no justification for the RC system beyond the pragmatic arguement of unity.

I posted the time chart to refute the silly notion of 80% acceptance of the scriptures before the 2nd century, and you say it confirms it. Look at it again.

Each one of those lists included the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus. This shows that they were accepted early on.

You have fallen into the rap of over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

No, I am just countering the false statements on this site that say there was no NT until the 4th century, implying that there was no guide whatsoever from Scripture until the Church came in and declared the canon. That is it. Not too much.

Do you know of any Church father who rejected these books?

 

[michaelp]

And please note there is a difference between something that is inspired and something that is formally canonized.

This is a human distinction that find no necessary basis. Canon is just a word that is used to describe the collection of books that we have that are inspired. There is nothing in the word or concept that is not totally reliant on the inspiration of the material therein.

Secondly, sir, you have typically dichotomized Tradition against Scripture. This is a heresy.

Heresy to who? You. Not me. Opinions do not help. It is only heresy if I am wrong. The evidence does not compel me to believe that I am in heresy right now. Do you want me to just take your word for it? That would not be responsible.

I should remind you, that Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.

Let me rephrase this and then I would agree (since your definition of Tradition is carrying baggage right now that is currently in dispute and to affirm your statement would be question begging)

“Sacred scripture comes from the sacred teaching of the apostles.”

Now we are on the same page. Otherwise you are question begging.

Without Sacred Tradition, we would have no Bible at all.

Again, “Without the teaching of the apostles we would have no Bible at all.”

Now we are on the same page (although I know you don’t mean this–but it is question begging otherwise).

Look in any Protestant study Bible. You should find that there was not one NT letter written for 23+ years, and there is no evidence that remotely suggests everyone new right away that it was inspired.

Really. Peter verifies that Paul’s writings are inspired. Look here:

2 Pet 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord *as *salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all *his *letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul believes Luke to be inspired since he quotes him in 1 Tim 5:18.

The ealy Church fathers believed most of the NT was inspired.

This seems pretty reliable.

 

[michaelp]

What was the authority during this time? A living teaching Church, whose leaders, not individuals, were entrusted with the Gospel message. Where in the Bible is the Gospel message limited to non-existing scriptures?

During what time? The time the Apostle’s were alive? They were the authority!

The hard facts of history prove the unbroken line of the Popes, and every bishop on the planet today.

If they carried the infallible message of God, they should follow by the pattern of anyone making such a claim and show the signs of a prophet (2 Cor 12:12). In Paul’s day there were alot of people claiming apostolic authority. He said if they had apostolic authority, why don’t they show the signs of an apostle like I do. How can the Pope bypass the criteria that God set up to protect himself?

That is part of the reason why some non-Catholic Christians has, over the years, gone out of their way to re-write the facts of history.

But don’t you understand, I study history and I don’t come to your conclusions. I am not biased against them, I just don’t see what you see.

Truth won’t work for their agendas so lies are the only alternative.

I have no agenda, and I am not lying.

When you separate the Bible from the Catholic Church, it’s no longer an inspired book.

That is question begging.

It is like saying that gravity did not come into being until Newton defined it and everybody agreed on its interpretation. This is not the case. Gravity existed and carried authority whether anyone believed it or not. The same for Scripture. Someone does not have to pronounce that it is inspired before it becomes so. People just recognize it.

Name one “bible-church” that is the same, teaches the same, as it did according to the original reformers. There aren’t any. That is not a “bible-church.” It’s a man-made church based on a hi-jacked book tossing to and fro with every wind of doctrine.

Wow! You are mad at me arn’t you? If it makes you feel any better, I don’t go to a Bible Church.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

If I do all you want, I might as well ship the text off to a publisher – you want me to write a book for you.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

But I believe I already mentioned Marcion and Valintinius, who were heretical leaders.

OK, if these are the only two that rejected the books that I have put up on this thread, then compare that to those who accepted them. Then look at the philosophy and agenda of those who rejected them. Gnostics. Well, that might be grounds for rejecting them. But in the end, you have to make up your own mind. But the internal evidence of these two characters that you put forth does not suggest that they would be reliable. The evidence of all the other Church fathers is compelling. Not to mention Paul’s own statements about Luke and Peter’s about Paul.

And let’s do something you should have done – read the Bible. In Revelation, John has seven letters to seven churches. Let’s see what he says: . . . . .

And that’s only the FIRST century!!

I don’t get this post. It just shows that there were false doctrines in the early Church. There were also false apostles in Corinth. That is why the apostolic authority as expressed in Scripture is necessary.

No – there was no New Testament yet. The Church, however was struggling – you see how John has to caution six of seven churches in Revelation about false teaching.

The Church has always struggled.

The New Testament was the outcome of that struggle – pulling together the writings of the early Christians, separating out the false and not-so-important, and reaching agreement on the final 27 books was a long process.

It was not long for most of the NT as I have demonstrated.

But you know what Vern, we are probebly going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that we have both given it our best, don’t you?

First of all, as I have pointed out, at least two of the New Testament authors (Mark and Luke) were not Apostles. And when you point out that they were associated with Apostles – you make the distinction that applies to tradition – it comes from Apostles or those who were associated with Apostles.

But Paul even affirms Luke. Mark was written under the care of Peter. I know you think that this is question begging, I am just making a statement of belief, not infallibility. I look at the evidence and it says that Mark wrote under the care of Peter. I see that internal and external evidence says that this book was written in the 60s. Even liberal Scholars date it right passed 70 now if they deny the possiblity of predictive prophecy, and Liberal “lite” scholars date it in the 60s as well. There is no evidence to the contrary. The early Church accepted it. Therefore, the evidence suggest that it should be considered inspired. Is this infallible, NO! I don’t need infallible evidence before I believe something. That is key.

And how do you KNOW the Apostles wrote the Gosples of Matthew and John? Do you have signed copies of the originals? Your only assurance is that Tradition says those books were written by Apostles.

Same as the above. The evidence all point to this conclusion. There is no compelling evidence to the contrary.

As for a “second infallible avenue,” that would be the New Testament – because Jesus Himself wrote nothing. His teaching was all oral. And the Apostles passed it on oraly. It was first written down a generation later – the earliest possible date for any New Testament document puts it some 20 to 25 years after the Resurection!

And, since Tradition was the method of sorting out and approving all the competing Christian texts, it is upon Tradition that Scripture depends.

Not “tradition” just the apostle’s teaching. I agree if this is the case.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Vern, do you think that we should lay this one to rest and agree to disagree?

It has been great. I know that you are frustrated, but believe me iron (you) are sharpening metal (me). I do appreciate your time–I know that you don’t have much of it.

Michael