.

[keltoi]

They didn't use any text. They followed what Jesus told them,

So they were limited to God's word.

please do not ruin this thread.

What are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

 

[jimmyjimmy]

They didn't use any text. They followed what Jesus told them, please do not ruin this thread.

They didn't use any texts?!

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

They didn't use any text. They followed what Jesus told them, please do not ruin this thread.

What did Jesus quote when he taught in the Temple?

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Should our understanding of God (theology) be based on our own reasoning or feelings, or on the texts of holy scripture?

Given a written exam, most Protestant Christians would agree with the statement, “the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice”; however, spend more than an hour on CF, and you will discover that, in practice, many trust their feelings, intuition, experiences, and even their goosebumps over the what the written written Word of God has declared.

I asked someone for a biblical backing for a statement he/she made. This was the reply: "you don't need to reference a book to understand reality." It's a perfect example of what I see on CF, and it explains the question I'm asking.

What's your theology based on?

The teachings of the apostles as reflected in the writings of the early church fathers, the Creed, the councils, the statements of later Fathers like St. John of Damascus and St. Gregory Palamas. and the contemporary bishops and scholars of the Orthodox Church, what one might call "Holy Tradition," with sacred scripture at its heart.

I figure that since St. Athanasius told us what books belong in the New Testament, I am kind of obligated to follow what he has to say about Christology, soteriology, asceticism, and other things.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

They didn't use any text. They followed what Jesus told them, please do not ruin this thread.

They did in fact use what we now call the Old Testament, and indeed books we regard as apocryphal, for instance, St. Jude famously refers to 1 Enoch. They furthermore produced texts: the epistles and the Gospels.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

What did Jesus quote when he taught in the Temple?

Probabaly a proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, perhaps something that lookr more like the LXX, and probabaly an Aramaic targumim as well.

 

[Cis.jd]

They did in fact use what we now call the Old Testament, and indeed books we regard as apocryphal, for instance, St. Jude famously refers to 1 Enoch. They furthermore produced texts: the epistles and the Gospels.

Oh yeah, the OT is obvious.. however I'm talking about the Gospels and the NT in general. The epistles and most of the writings of the NT were not as commercialized like it is today. There were so many different types of writings that circulated with in that time as well, not just the books/writings of the NT. In short, what I mean is the apostles did not follow the code of sola scriptura but mainly the things taught to them by Jesus and possible old Judaisitic upbringing.

 

[Cis.jd]

They didn't use any texts?!

To run their church, no. I don't deny they've had access to the OT, the NT and the ways of the Christian church is what i am referring to.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Oh yeah, the OT is obvious.. however I'm talking about the Gospels and the NT in general. The epistles and most of the writings of the NT were not as commercialized like it is today. There were so many different types of writings that circulated with in that time as well, not just the books/writings of the NT. In short, what I mean is the apostles did not follow the code of sola scriptura but mainly the things taught to them by Jesus and possible old Judaisitic upbringing.

Ok, I get the point you are making, and I agree; you came across unwittingly as suggesting they had no textusl basis from which to work with, but in fact, you were merely pointing out the NT was still being written, and it would be 400 years before we had a definitive canon.

 

[keltoi]

To run their church, no. I don't deny they've had access to the OT, the NT and the ways of the Christian church is what i am referring to.

What about the various letters from the Apostles?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16)

Peter seems to call Paul's writings scripture.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

"as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16)

Peter seems to call Paul's writings scripture.

Indeed, and from this basis we can safely regard the Church made the correct call when it declared these writings canonical Scripture.

It was careful to exclude psuedepigrapha like 1 Barnabas; 1 Clement and the epistles of St. Ignatius the Martyr were omitted not for any error they contained, but due to their not being Apostles. Nonetheless in the case of 1 Clement, Polycarp and the Ignatian corpus, I feel these, along with the Didache, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, and certain works of St. Athanasius, should be in an appendix to every Bible.

 

[Cis.jd]

Indeed, and from this basis we can safely regard the Church made the correct call when it declared these writings canonical Scripture.

It was careful to exclude psuedepigrapha like 1 Barnabas; 1 Clement and the epistles of St. Ignatius the Martyr were omitted not for any error they contained, but due to their not being Apostles. Nonetheless in the case of 1 Clement, Polycarp and the Ignatian corpus, I feel these, along with the Didache, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, and certain works of St. Athanasius, should be in an appendix to every Bible.

Yes, i agree.However, Paul's letters or the writings of the apostles are not what you call the GOSPELS. The life of Jesus. There is no doubt that the apostles wrote letters and various guidances for the beginning church, but it was never seen as how we view the bible.

I view this topic as very important mainly because the Bible we have to deny is attacked by lies such as "it's interpolated". Islam (i have nothing against Muslims personally) for example claims that all this about the Trinity and Jesus being God was never believed in prior to the Church (or sometimes Paul, they flip flop in their arguments). They accuse the Church of interpolating the verses that claim Jesus' divinity. However, when we look at history, based on the writings, creeds, letters of the Apostles and the Martyrs (which they probably never knew would be compiled to be in our Bible), we know that academically and historically, that the Christian beliefs in concern about Jesus was the first. I've heard various different myths and views about Jesus from other religions. Hinduism claims he is an avatar to the reincarnation of Krishna and Buddha, Islam claims he was a Prophet, Buddhism claims he was just a wise moral teacher, but and it was him being God, the Son of God, and the Messiah that was the first one. This is what I mean that there is more to (or FOR) God then just the Canonical scriptures and that the apostles did not base their beliefs/claims by any writings like what we christians do now.

 

[keltoi]

This is what I mean that there is more to (or FOR) God then just the Canonical scriptures and that the apostles did not base their beliefs/claims by any writings like what we christians do now.

They didn't need them and they had to deal with more than Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman Gods, Keltic gods, Persian, the list goes on and they could answer all these people with the Bible and build Christ's church doing so.

 

[Boogeyman07]

I didnt read any of these pages except for the first one so forgive me if someone has brought this up. I think the bible should be the absolute basis no doubt, but i also think that experience can definitely shape our views and help us learn us well. I think pauls conversion is a prime example of that

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Probabaly a proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, perhaps something that lookr more like the LXX, and probabaly an Aramaic targumim as well.

To be precise Jesus quoted the OT quite often because it was in fact still valid and in effect.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

To be precise Jesus quoted the OT quite often because it was in fact still valid and in effect.

Yes, it was.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Yes, it was.

I can appreciate the importance in pointing out the point of "was".

 

[SnowyMacie]

Scripture, tradition, and reason. I believe the three are intertwined, as you can't interepret scripture withhout having some background into it (tradition), and reason isn't to be excluded for when we find that scripture and tradition have no clear answer.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Scripture, tradition, and reason. I believe the three are intertwined, as you can't interepret scripture withhout having some background into it (tradition), and reason isn't to be excluded for when we find that scripture and tradition have no clear answer.

This is what I believe when the "interpretation" argument is presented.......Interpreters fall into two categories: those who seek to interpret the passage objectively with respect for the original meaning of the authors, and those who have an agenda.