A few questions for Protestants

[YeshuaFan]

You are aware that the O.T. books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the N. T. books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. Right? And that the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century? Pretty sure the Apostles were long gone by then.



Yes, I agree that evidence shows that most people could not even read or write, even after the printing press was invented by German inventor Johannes Gutenberg around 1439.



Sacred writings? You must mean the writings of the O.T. alone, for history shows us the Bible did not exist until after the late fourth century.



The question was..." Can you show me when it started?" Can you show any early Christian historical writings or documentations that backs this up?



Well renniks, I agree with you here somewhat, but not completely. My question was...."Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?" First off, as history shows, the bible was not compiled or in existence until the late forth century. Secondly, as shown above, evidence shows that most people could not even read or write, even after the printing press was invented around 1439. Even then, 99% of people could not afford them! However, I do agree that they heard the writings from the bible after it was compiled, (again, late 4th cent.) orally, as in Oral Tradition.

So renniks, let me ask you, if Christians were intended by our Lord to rely only upon the Bible for truth, then from the start Bibles would have to have been available to the average believer, don’t you agree? If so, when do you believe the Bible was available to the average believer?

Have a Blessed Day!

There were copies of the NT complete by end of the first century and they were being copied and circulated by beginning of the second century, so they did have entire OT and copied NT!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Not entirely accurate. They had portions of what we call the new testament. Just because it wasn't the official canon yet doesn't mean they didn't hear the written words of the apostles.

Entire NT canon was written by end of the first century, and were being copied and circulated around, so indeed did have the OT and NT!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Only in a very technical sense.

Almost everything that was gathered together and given the church's seal of approval in the fourth century had, by that time, long since been acknowledged by the churches as being the inspired word of God.

Indeed, as they jusy formally ratified what had already been accepted and used as inspired OT/NT since beginning second century!

 

[timothyu]

Your fantasy about the Church being an unstructured, leaderless "movement" is patently contradicted by both Scripture and history. .

Institution builders are no different than those who build financial empires today. Gentile Christianity had become the beginnings of Corporatism where sects were absorbed or removed as the institution grew, eventually reaching power status when it merged with the Roman Empire as a power and went on to be an empire of it's own, a king maker much in the same way Corporatism sets up governments today. A perfect tool of the Adversary.

That is the reality of human nature. That is the way man has always acted and why Jesus came to give us an alternative, to give those blinded by the ways of this world new sight. It is certainly not beyond those men to take what Jesus brought and turn it into something they could use for gain and power. Even the Sanhedrin had done the same. Certainly there were pious men and women from the beginning, but they were of the Kingdom, not the world of man like these who sought gain at the expense of others. God knew this would happen because man is so predictable and He uses these types for his own purpose. The scriptures have remained relatively intact and forwarded by these rogue elements, even if the church fell to the wayside and back into the world. His truth is with us in scripture, not the doctrines and rituals of man.

 

[timothyu]

Entire NT canon was written by end of the first century, and were being copied and circulated around, so indeed did have the OT and NT!

Yes, just not in one collection.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yes, just not in one collection.

Correct, as had the entire OT collection, but not all of the NT collected together, but all of them were in use as being copied and circulated around!

 

[renniks]

If you don't rely on the Bible, what do you rely on?

The Bible doesn't save anyone obviously. The Holy Spirit does.

 

[Buzzard3]

Entire NT canon was written by end of the first century, and were being copied and circulated around, so indeed did have the OT and NT!

The fact that the NT canon was not ratified until the fourth century suggests that
1. The canon was controversial and there was a need within the Church to once and for all clarify what books were indeed inspired and which weren't.
2. In the early centuries of the Church, it's possible that certain uninspired books were doing the rounds and were mistakenly assumed by some to be inspired.

 

[timothyu]

The fact that the NT canon was not ratified until the fourth century suggests that
1. The canon was controversial and there was a need within the Church to once and for all clarify what books were indeed inspired and which weren't.
2. In the early centuries of the Church, it's possible that certain uninspired books were doing the rounds and were mistakenly assumed by some to be inspired.

Was the main factor for ratification that all translations be singled down to be in Latin or was it in Greek (considering the Roman Empire was ruled from the east) in order to control the narrative?

 

[YeshuaFan]

The fact that the NT canon was not ratified until the fourth century suggests that
1. The canon was controversial and there was a need within the Church to once and for all clarify what books were indeed inspired and which weren't.
2. In the early centuries of the Church, it's possible that certain uninspired books were doing the rounds and were mistakenly assumed by some to be inspired.

The entire OT canon was alreadu accepted by time of Christ, and ONLY 4 NT books of the canon wedre ever in any dispute, Hebrews and Revelation and 2 peter, as authorship concerns, and James, as some thought he taught Saved by Works!

 

[Fidelibus]

I rely on the Holy Spirits authority. Not any particular church affiliation.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a common belief among Protestant/non-denominational, Bible alone believing Christians that there are no Christians who can infallibly interpret Scripture? If so, is this your belief as well? Soooo.... wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?

There's the true church, that is, true believers of every stripe, and there's tares in every denomination also.

Interesting, by what you said here, let me ask, are there Christians that belong to this "true church" you speak of, and "true believers of every stripe", who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same?

One last question, since I pray to the Holy Spirit before reading Scripture, does let's say for example..... does Joel Osteen, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, interpretations of Scripture, or yours for that matter, have more authority than my interpretation of Scripture?

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Well I guess I could ask how you know that it wasn't only what was later included?

With all due respect, answering a question with a question, is not answering my question With that being said, how do you think in the ancient world, authorship was designated?

I'm sure they were not reading anything that wasn't from an actual apostle.

You know, Mark and Luke were not "actual apostles" right? So, you are sure the first century Christians were not reading their writings?

For example, they were not reading the gnostic writings. I'm sure they read from the Torah also. Paul uses it extensively in his writings. Jesus himself used it to explain how it spoke of him. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to get to.

My point is, early Christian history shows us, in the first three plus centuries, and before the canon of the bible was ratified in the late forth century, there were many writings that were determined not to be included into the bible we have today.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Fidelibus]

"Sufficient as a rule of faith" is not the same as "rely on the bible alone."

Well, I have family/friends that belong to the various Protestant/non-denominational churches and sects that are bible alone Christians, that tell me that "yes", they do rely on the bible alone, and believe the bible is "Sufficient as a rule of faith." Pretty sure these same believers could be found right here on this 'Christian forum.'

So, what would you say to them?

 

[timothyu]

there are no Christians who can infallibly interpret Scripture?

Why is there a need to interpret when Jesus clearly said the Gospel of the Kingdom was why He was sent so go spread that good news, and He gave us a simple prayer needing no interpretation where it says His Kingdom will come and His will be done in earth. Not to mention two commandments repeated throughout the Bible simply saying put God first and care for each other.

Interpretation is needed when scripture must be made to fit with doctrines man have devised for their own purposes.

 

[Fidelibus]

There were copies of the NT complete by end of the first century and they were being copied and circulated by beginning of the second century, so they did have entire OT and copied NT!

So, you should have no problem showing us Christian and/or historic documentation from the first or second century to back up this claim of yours, right?

 

[Fidelibus]

Why is there a need to interpret when Jesus clearly said the Gospel of the Kingdom was why He was sent so go spread that god news, and gave us a simple prayer needing no interpretation where it says His Kingdom will come and His will be done in earth. Not to mention two commandments repeated throughout the Bible simply saying put God first and care for each other.

Interpretation is needed when scripture must be made to fit with doctrines man have already devised.

Are there Christians who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same?

 

[timothyu]

Are there Christians who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same?

What does that have to do with what I said. What I said applies to all.

 

[coffee4u]

How many Protestants recite the same creed every Sunday? Wait ... do Protestants even have a creed?

The Apostles Creed will be said in some denominations occasionally.
Others will have a 'statement of faith' that you agree to if you want to become a member.
Our Beliefs - Queensland Baptists

 

[timothyu]

Others will have a 'statement of faith' that you agree to if you want to become a member.

Like loading new software

 

[Albion]

Well, I have family/friends that belong to the various Protestant/non-denominational churches and sects that are bible alone Christians, that tell me that "yes", they do rely on the bible alone, and believe the bible is "Sufficient as a rule of faith." Pretty sure these same believers could be found right here on this 'Christian forum.'

So, what would you say to them?

Nothing. It's often the case that people who believe the Bible to be sufficient as a rule of faith say that they rely on the Bible alone when explaining it to other people.