The first Christians weren't Bible Christians

[Aractus]

Yes I disagree because they already had the written Old Testament, in Hebrew! Paul quotes from Greek (ie the LXX), but Luke on the other hand quotes from the original Hebrew. Therefore they had the Old Testament - that's written scriptures.

[Phatt Matt s]

Yes I disagree because they already had the written Old Testament, in Hebrew! Paul quotes from Greek (ie the LXX), but Luke on the other hand quotes from the original Hebrew. Therefore they had the Old Testament - that's written scriptures.

They had the Old Testament but they didn't follow the law of Moses and Jesus never commanded them to go out and hand Scriptures out and make them available to everyone.

He sent them out to preach and said, "he who hears you hears me".

[Aractus]

They had the Old Testament but they didn't follow the law of Moses and Jesus never commanded them to go out and hand Scriptures out and make them available to everyone.

Actually they did continue to follow the Law of Moses (or at least many Christians did) until 48-49AD at the Jerusalem Council "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter".

[Phatt Matt s]

They had the Old Testament but they didn't follow the law of Moses and Jesus never commanded them to go out and hand Scriptures out and make them available to everyone.

Actually they did continue to follow the Law of Moses (or at least many Christians did) until 48-49AD at the Jerusalem Council "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter".

In ACTS 15 the Apostles made a decision as the Church Authority (Bishops) that believers could sport uncircumcised penis's.

That decision totally contradicted all the scriptures of the time. The Apostles were not Solascriptura.

[Aractus]

In ACTS 15 the Apostles made a decision as the Church Authority (Bishops) that believers could sport uncircumcised penis's.

That decision totally contradicted all the scriptures of the time. The Apostles were not Solascriptura.

No, it contradicted Judaism. If you go back to before Moses then the ancient Israelites had not yet received the Law of Moses, and this is why:

Galations 3:

• O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
  
  Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Romans 4:

• What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
  
  • “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
    and whose sins are covered;
    blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
  Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

It's an early doctrine, but it's not solely invented by Paul (or for that matter Peter). In any case, they'd received the New Covenant, which is summed up by Paul in 1 Cor 15.

---

Anyway, truth be told, I don't know how much more help I can be on this subject my knowledge of early church history certainly isn't as good or detailed as some people. But at least it isn't the incorrect version taught by the RCC or Muslims!

[Phatt Matt s]

Okay that second comment you made didn't jive with me at all. If the Catholic Church was lead astray that would mean Christians were lead astray for more than 1500 years.

The SolaScriptura DOctrine is a "Jonny come lately" for Christianity that was invented by the founders of the Reformation in the 16th Century and embraced by no significant communion of Christians (Church) for about 1500 years.

Whose determination of the canon of Scripture is authoritative? (If your answer is "the Scriptures testify to their own canonicity", then, since persons disagree about the content of this testimony, whose determination of the content of this testimony is authoritative?)

#2 Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?

Whose determination of the identity and extension of the Body of Christ is authoritative? (If you deny that Christ founded a visible Church, then skip this question

Whose determination of which councils are authoritative is authoritative? (If you deny that any Church councils are authoritative, then skip this question

Whose determination of orthodoxy and heresy is authoritative? (If your answer is "Scripture", then go to question #2

"the Holy Spirit", or "Jesus" or "the Apostles", then whose determination of what the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus have determined is authoritative because there is much disagreement from those who read their word thoroughly?

Whose determination of the nature of "sola scriptura" is authoritative?

What authority then gives the inerrant interpretation and how do you Biblically identify that authority?

[Aractus]

Okay that second comment you made didn't jive with me at all. If the Catholic Church was lead astray that would mean Christians were lead astray for more than 1500 years.

TC, both the RCC and the Orthodox church claim to trace their inception back to the disciples themselves. Truth be told, we (that is the protestant Christians) do not know 100% exactly when the RCC as we know it first formed.

The SolaScriptura DOctrine is a "Jonny come lately" for Christianity that was invented by the founders of the Reformation in the 16th Century and embraced by no significant communion of Christians (Church) for about 1500 years.

Nonsense. At the Council of Trent (mid 16th century) the RCC decreed the Vulgate to be Holy, Inspired, Without Error - the authorities scripture. Jerome would have turned in his grave. Even today 99% of Catholics do not know that the Vulgate is infallible scripture according to their Church.

Since that time we've proven beyond doubt that the Masoretic Text is far more reliable than the LXX from which Jerome translated the OT portion of the Vulgate - or as I prefer to call it, column 5 of the Hexapla.

Whose determination of the canon of Scripture is authoritative? (If your answer is "the Scriptures testify to their own canonicity", then, since persons disagree about the content of this testimony, whose determination of the content of this testimony is authoritative?)

Well the RCC decided upon their present canon on 8 April 1546 by a manufactured vote (voting pontiffs were threatened with excommunication). In fact Priests and Bishops who'd been using the original languages instead of the Latin were excommunicated at this time by the RCC, Martin Luther for instance (though this wasn't just to do with the translation but also his rejection of RCC doctrines outlined in the 95 Theses).

On 3 September 1943 Pope Pius XII decreed that the original Greek and Hebrew texts were also sacred, now this is what the Protestants had been saying all along - you have to remember that in 1546 it was the Protestants who said that the original language scriptures were more reliable and it took the RCC 400 years to catch up! But the RCC still decrees that the Vulgate is also infallible - so now you have two sets of scripture, and they have inconsistencies (ie errors that Jerome made when translating, and errors that the LXX translators made and that Theodotion made and that Origen made). Interesting how Origen would have been just as heretical to the same standards the RCC applied to Martin Luther, yet they think he's part of their lineage?

#2 Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?

The RCC, according to the RCC as decreed at the Council of Trent! See the issue yet?

Whose determination of which councils are authoritative is authoritative? (If you deny that any Church councils are authoritative, then skip this question

Well the RCC ones are not. As an Anglican we generally accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, although we wouldn't accept anything that contradicted the scriptures. We do not see the Church as infallible, whereas the RCC believe itself to be infallible.

Whose determination of orthodoxy and heresy is authoritative? (If your answer is "Scripture", then go to question #2

Again, this requires incredibly detailed knowledge of the very early church. But look, the books of the bible that may be of some small level of dispute do not really add any doctrine not found in the rest of them, for instance if you took away 1 and 2 Peter it would make no difference. All they do is reaffirm what the other books say as it is.

But of course there would be Gnostic/ heretical wrings, I mean to expect otherwise would be very ignorant. There were heretical Jewish writings - what about the Samaritan Pentateuch for instance?

You seem to have been taught from the RCC's point of view, my advice is to research it yourself and make up your own mind. I certainly don't get my early church history from a "church source" Anglican or otherwise.

[Phatt Matt s]

Your claim that the RCC made their decision on the Canon in the 16th Century is way, way, WAY false!

Nope, Pope Damasus (382) listed the current books in the new testament and OT Canon as it is in the Catholic Bible. the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century formed the Catholic Canon which the Church always accepted. THe Canon was confirmed, reafirmed, reaffirmed, reaffirmed, and then closed.

In the 16th Century the Canon came under attack so the Church had to once again define "THIS IS THE CORRECT CANON".

[Justtristo]

deleted

[Belev2Know]

T: incorrectly restates :
Your claim that the RCC made their decision on the Canon in the 16th Century is
(too) (where do you quote Flemming (or Jung's dreams) and Dougherty and others of 'psyco-visions', in early postings: pls report your sources for all to "know")

Any student of the first over 5500 papers and near 10,000 copies before 7th century began claims of "dis-oriented changes" by such as many as well as Mohamedans, -- any today- is aware of Pope Damasus (382) listed the current books in the new testament and OT Canon as it is in the Catholic Bible.

Catholic as I am sure you understand T, is "universal called out ones"
-so to speak,
and not the RCC until adoptive use of a universal word "catholic" was placed for that usage.
Called out one's are also not as 'eclectic' is misused in Hollywood speak, and not as say some 'gathering' as a Parliament for order...
which leads to WHAT followers of an empirical 'CALLING' leads to - a "church" and too, it seems still, is why a core grows to date, [[ open for bombing, but it is the sluggard that says "there are lions in the streets" and stays inside " class="wiki_link">Wiki:

TRUE as he and any student 101 in any church history lesson noted more completely-
not all encompassing here,
of the church of followers before RCC and after RCC the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century formed the Catholic Canon which the Church always accepted. THe Canon was confirmed, reafirmed, reaffirmed, reaffirmed, and then closed.AND REOPENED IN SCHOLARLY ACCEPTANCE since 1943, since truth seems to make its own...

In the 16th Century the Canon came under attack so the Wiki: Church had to once again define "THIS IS THE CORRECT CANON".

In that BASIS of your belief then it is clearer why the responses are more thorough by another

---

In regards to all the respected Q of or commentary in the OP:
T:

Perhaps you are aware of the "church back to Peter" b/c thought "the Rock" and on this (grk: Petra)...

and have you seen the simple to read Grk: "petros" and in the same "petra" ?

among the many thousands coinciding in Grk writ, to wit: it seems easy to read a translated English and others to mean Petros, Peter was the Petra- rock, recorded "up on this 'rock' I will build my called-out church"

in response to recorded Jesus asking "Who do you say that I am?" before as Col 2:9 reads he is the present progressive embodied fulness of the Divine-One, literally, if you believe that to date...
but in recorded presence on Earth, as one of them humanly then, "I will call you Petros" as then Peter stated Jesus was the Son of God; and after Jesus recirdedly-stated
"FLESH has not revealed this to you (people of just talking and convincing)" "but my Parent-Father in heaven"

so if this be the revelation that is the "ROCK" the called out one's are "built" then, then, there had to be pagan-named little-Christ's before any 4th century edicts...

and is as several times more historical documentation is available to read than say found of Alexander the Great, documents only dating 900 years after his "evident" living...

I need more skepticism and balanced commentary for further review in this thread to equate to factual historical findings (even that of I comment) accepted by both called-out scientists and un-believing scientists of documents found to date. still looking when I make time to be in balanced review more completely...

---

again: Peter = Petros; but "build [ the church- universal "catholic" (-which is recorded as all/any called-out (church-)-one's) before RCC ]
those like Peter
receiving direct from "Father-parent in heaven' (as recorded) knowledge empirically and purely
then
are the "Church" built before RCC and 4th century doc's compounded:
those built on PETRA, the 'rock' of such revelation knowledge, "not receive(d) by flesh"

You can ask: would anyone seriously build an understanding of such as some eventual sacrifice for missing a Father-parent-God on an imperfect human/heart ?