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]

[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]