How do you respond to this charge?

[aReformedPatriot]

"The first Christian's did not have a complete Bible." How does one respond to that from the perspective of Scripture Alone?

 

[Iollain]

Oh that does not matter, they were still saved by faith in Jesus.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

"The first Christian's did not have a complete Bible." How does one respond to that from the perspective of Scripture Alone?

I say there was the letters to the differant churches and the Old Testement and possibly some of the Gospels that they DID have. You don't need the whole book to show you how to get to heaven. Anyone one who had been saved knew how to lead another to the Lord. That is just a line that people use to try and prove that scripture is not needed. Bottom line is that whatever IS written in the bible, every church should abide by and if they are not, then they are not a bible believing church.

 

[rural_preacher]

They had the Apostles. The Apostles had authority from Christ to speak the Word of God (they also wrote it down). They were inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak and write. The early church had the spoken Word of God (from the Apostles) and we have the written Word of God.

Both give testimony of the Living Word of God...Jesus Christ.



--

 

[angela 2]

"The first Christian's did not have a complete Bible." How does one respond to that from the perspective of Scripture Alone?

They didn't have a complete written bible. But everything we have written in scripture today was available to the first Christians through the spoken word.

 

[Gold Dragon]

They didn't have a complete written bible. But everything we have written in scripture today was available to the first Christians through the spoken word.

That isn't true either.

Most of the words we have were written about 20-70 years after Christ's death. Much of the oral tradition that is the basis of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) existed right after they happened. Paul's letters became oral tradition as they were being written between 50AD and ~150AD. John's writings and the general epistles were written between 80AD and ~160AD.

Early Christian Writings

"The first Christian's did not have a complete Bible." How does one respond to that from the perspective of Scripture Alone?

I would say that the first Christians did not have the complete canon of the Bible and that this is one of the strongest arguments against Sola Scriptura. I believe most sola scriptura arguments would say that the early Christians had the direct influence of the apostles who were the source of the scriptures.

 

[Iollain]

There are a few other things the first Christians didn't have either

 

[If Not For Grace]

JMHO, but I think that is why it was important for them to WRITE down things (like what Happened, and what Jesus shared with them).

PS. It might be that we STILL don't have a "complete" bible, since all their writings may not have been discovered yet -- remember the dead sea scrolls.

 

[newbeliever02072005]

There are a few other things the first Christians didn't have either

Like what?

PS. It might be that we STILL don't have a "complete" bible, since all their writings may not have been discovered yet -- remember the dead sea scrolls.

We don't have a complete bible?

 

[Gold Dragon]

JMHO, but I think that is why it was important for them to WRITE down things (like what Happened, and what Jesus shared with them).

PS. It might be that we STILL don't have a "complete" bible, since all their writings may not have been discovered yet -- remember the dead sea scrolls.

The extra-biblical documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls that were not previously available to scholars were commentaries about biblical books and documents outlining the practice of the sect that preserved the scrolls. Most scholars believe them to be the Jewish sect of the Essenes. If God wanted those books to be His scripture, why would he wait more than 2000 years after they were written to reveal them to Christians? Especially when they hold no relevance to our current cultural context.

Newbeliever, the idea that we don't have a complete bible is a very untraditional view that is not held by a vast majority of Christians throughout history since the formation of the Biblical canon around the 400s.

 

[novcncy]

"The first Christian's did not have a complete Bible." How does one respond to that from the perspective of Scripture Alone?

Well, they did have manifestations of the Holy Spirit we no longer have (speaking in tongues, deadly serpents, poison, etc.), miracles that authenticated their ministries, and Apostles, as has been mentioned.

 

[newbeliever02072005]

The extra-biblical documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls that were not previously available to scholars were commentaries about biblical books and documents outlining the practice of the sect that preserved the scrolls. Most scholars believe them to be the Jewish sect of the Essenes. If God wanted those books to be His scripture, why would he wait more than 2000 years after they were written to reveal them to Christians? Especially when they hold no relevance to our current cultural context.

"Jewish sect of the Essenes" can you tell me what this is? Also, the dead sea scrolls you say are commentaires about the biblical books . Are they commentaries on just the Old Testament or both Testaments?

Newbeliever, the idea that we don't have a complete bible is a very untraditional view that is not held by a vast majority of Christians throughout history since the formation of the Biblical canon around the 400s.

Oh good! I was worried that I was not reading a complete bible.

 

[Gold Dragon]

"Jewish sect of the Essenes" can you tell me what this is? Also, the dead sea scrolls you say are commentaires about the biblical books . Are they commentaries on just the Old Testament or both Testaments?

The Essenes were a Jewish sect (like Pharisee and Sadducee) around the time of Christ. They no longer exist.

It is believed that they hid the Dead Sea Scrolls in caves because they were being persecuted by the Romans.

They were rediscovered in 1947 and are currently our oldest surviving manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament books. Included in the caves were many complete copies of some books of the OT and fragments of every other book in the OT with the exception of Esther.

Besides OT books, there were also many other books including books recognized by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions as being part of the OT canon which protestants call the Apocrypha.

There are also copies of other Jewish writings not accepted by any Christian or Jewish groups as being part of the OT canon. Some of these were previously available to manuscript scholars. Of those that weren't, they were mostly biblical commentaries and documents outlining the "rules of the community" for the sect.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden away before any of the New Testament was written.

 

[Crazy Liz]

The Essenes were a Jewish sect (like Pharisee and Sadducee) around the time of Christ. They no longer exist.

[snip]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden away before any of the New Testament was written.

The majority opinion about the origin of the DSS is that they belonged to an Essene community at Qumran. There is also a plausible minority theory that these scrolls came from Jerusalem, and were hidden by Jewish refugees fleeing the destruction of 70 AD.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The majority opinion about the origin of the DSS is that they belonged to an Essene community at Qumran. There is also a plausible minority theory that these scrolls came from Jerusalem, and were hidden by Jewish refugees fleeing the destruction of 70 AD.

Thanks Liz.

I guess a more accurate statement that reflects the point I was getting across is that the DSS are OT manuscripts.

Although I have heard about some small fragment that supposedly may have come from one of the gospels (Mark I believe) but that theory is not widely accepted.

 

[hindsey]

Well, they did have manifestations of the Holy Spirit we no longer have (speaking in tongues, deadly serpents, poison, etc.), miracles that authenticated their ministries, and Apostles, as has been mentioned.

Yup, what he said.

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The signs were witnesses that God was speaking through them. Now we have the complete Scriptures that were inspired by God.

 

[angela 2]

That isn't true either.

Most of the words we have were written about 20-70 years after Christ's death. Much of the oral tradition that is the basis of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) existed right after they happened. Paul's letters became oral tradition as they were being written between 50AD and ~150AD. John's writings and the general epistles were written between 80AD and ~160AD.

Early Christian Writings



I would say that the first Christians did not have the complete canon of the Bible and that this is one of the strongest arguments against Sola Scriptura. I believe most sola scriptura arguments would say that the early Christians had the direct influence of the apostles who were the source of the scriptures.

Maybe I need to define what I mean by first Christians. I mean people who lived "after the death of the last apostle."

 

[hindsey]

The whole Bible was complete after the death of the last apostle. Just because it was officially recognized in a list a couple hundred years later, does not mean that people before that time didn't have it. The church had the entire Bible, and recognized it (with a few disagreements) as Scripture.

I don't mean to say that each person had access to the whole Bible, just as today there are people that do not. But the early Christians had the apostles, and then the Scriptures...

 

[Flynmonkie]

"The first Christian's did not have a complete Bible." How does one respond to that from the perspective of Scripture Alone?

We have the Holy Spirit, prayer and Faith....what truly more does one need? In essence....which is greater.....the Bible or these things? Interesting.

 

[McDLT]

Well - this question also applies to the people's who don't have the Bible translated into their language yet. Or for the people who only have a few pages of the Bible, because Bibles are illegal in their country.

The Christians in the 1st Century did not have the Bible we have but they did have Scriptures. They had the Jewish Scriptures.