How do we know there is a Bible? How do we know what is in it? None of the Apostles used one; St Paul did not possess one; not a single one of the Churches he founded knew of such a thing; we do not see any mention of it in the earliest sources. Yet some insist that they proceed only by the Bible. This is the same book which allowed Arius to ‘prove’ that Jesus was a ‘creature’ and from which every heretic there has ever been has been able to cherry-pick quotations to ‘prove’ their heresy. The early Church was not sola Scriptura, any more than the Apostles were; makes you wonder how they all managed. I have always meant to ask Protestant friends about this. At the very least we know that Christians got by for a long time with no Bible. So how did they manage?
They did as St Paul adjured – followed the oral and written traditions just as he, himself did. Written tradition? Yes, we know, from Peter’s second epistle, and from the earliest writings that there were written traditions. Justin Martyr tells us that on Sundays Christians met to worship together, to hear the ‘memoirs of the Apostles’ and share the communion meal. Scholars assume that these ‘memoirs’ were the four Gospels mentioned by St Irenaeus, who wrote in the mid second century. For all the publicity given to so-called ‘forgotten gospels’, there have only ever been four – recognised by the Church. As we have seen, the earliest of those, Mark’s, has more than one ending, and the only reason that the current one is in most Bibles is because the Church decided that should be so.
That is a microcosm of the whole process by which we have a Canon. There is no place in Scripture which tells us that there is a Bible, or what is in it. We are told Scripture is inspired and good for instruction, but nowhere are we told what it is. Those, like our friend Bosco, who say they ‘just know’ what is in the Bible by the aid of the Spirit in them, have no answer to the question of what the true ending of mark should be. In truth, of course, they only know there is a Bible because of the early Church, which is the same reason they know what books it contains.
In practice, they, like so many, accept only a part of what the Church teaches, and for the most part accept a man-made interpretation, with themselves as the man making the interpretation; in practice, in short, they worship a God created in their image. They choose which parts of Scripture matter to them, and emphasise them. It is, of course, quite amusing to be told that the Church which established Scripture has no idea how to read it, whilst modern men know so much better. Adam’s sin remains strong in his descendants.
Over to you, bruvver Bosco!
LikeLike
How do we know there is a Bible? How do we know what is in it? None of the Apostles used one; St Paul did not possess one; not a single one of the Churches he founded knew of such a thing; we do not see any mention of it in the earliest sources,
This is a case in point. The NT is not for the unsaved. They are blinded to it. Every jew had the scriptures, or almost everyone. If they didn’t they could use one from their friend, but they all had one at their temple.
John 5:39 | Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jesus seems to think everyone had the scriptures.
LikeLike
You must think that there was a printing press that was churning out scripture at amazing rates. Quite the miracle since the printing press did not get invented until A.D. 1439. Every scripture until then was meticulously copied by hand onto velum and took many, years to complete. They were as rare as hens teeth and cost more than most individuals could ever afford. That is why the OT scriptures were safeguarded by the priests and that the ones found in the synagogues were hand copies of the Septuagint text that Ptolemy had commissioned for his library.
However, the Jews heard these scriptures read every Sabbath and were quite proficient in memorizing many of the passages from the Scriptures.
The same remained the same for the NT Scriptures, once the Church had brought all the texts into the NT canon. They were precious and only bishops and priests were lucky enough to get a copy from those monks who labored night and day to provide them. Otherwise, the folks had to hear the scriptures at the Liturgy where they were read.
So, since the NT is for the saved, why were the Apostles without this canon of scripture? Were they the unsaved?
John 5:39 refers to the Septuagint, the OT scriptures as the NT scriptures were not declared scripture until A.D. 382. So C’s point is that which obviously do not grasp at all.
LikeLike
Yeah, I know they were hand printed and not everyone had one, but there were always tons of scribes around so if you wanted the OT you coud get one. I also know the apostles didn’t have the NT. They were the NT. Yes, the unsaved don’t understand it. They read it, but they cant see it. They don’t believe what they are reading.Just look at how some religious folks do everything Jesus said not to do. That ought to tell you rite there.
LikeLike
I’ve noticed that myself: like slander and scandalizing the innocent. Sound like anyone you might know?
LikeLike
Uh, isn’t the definition of slander a untrue statement?
LikeLike
Yes, and you seldom make any other sort of statement. It is, I fear, the Father of lies who has revealed himself to you. Perhaps you can still be saved from him – but not by believing his lies and spreading them.
LikeLike
Indeed and yes, you continually slander. I’ll stand by that.
LikeLike
He is referring to the Jewish Scriptures. I think you are busted.
LikeLike
There is no place in Scripture which tells us that there is a Bible, or what is in it.
When the Glenlivet wears off, look at the last words in the bible.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Some hell bound idolaters will say that this only pertains to the book of Rev. But the bible as a whole is designed as a whole, by the same author. Those that go to the grave don’t believe in the bible anyway. Their religion has already turned them off of ot by telling them its not enough for salvation. That its a dead letter. That there is more that they need to know. That’s why there is a lake of fire…for these mongrels and dogs.
LikeLike
Who is the “same author”, bruvver Bosco? Could you be thinking of King James?
LikeLike
The author is the Holy Ghost brother Eccles.
LikeLike
King James is a reincarnation of the Holy Ghost. Like King Melchisidek before hand. Until King James came along, there was no Bible. Everyone who professed Christ to the death beforehand will be in Hell and many people who still struggle to interpret King James’s Holy Word (The Bible is the Word of King James (aka the Holy Ghost)) will end up in Hell. It is up to Bosco, the only Christian that has ever come into existence since the Apostles, to save us all from wicked unbelief so that God will be persuaded not to send us to the fiery inferno. Bosco is the third manifestation of the Holy Ghost.
LikeLike
Poor Bosco. Do you really think that comment refers to a book not in existence when the author of Revelation wrote? it was a separate book, and refers only to itself. Two fails thus far Bosco.
LikeLike
nONE of the OT writers knew each other, but one can see its a intergrated book. God knew what was gonna be in the NT and he designed it that way. I believe in a strong god. My god doesn’t need mens help.
LikeLike
no idea what that has relevance to.
LikeLike
They choose which parts of Scripture matter to them, and emphasise them.
You mean like Matt 16;17?
LikeLike
I know that those who are not true followers of Jesus cannot read the book of his Church, so you don’t need to keep proving this, but thanks all the same.
LikeLike
“the Church which established Scripture has no idea how to read it”
No…the unsaved have no clue what it means. And yes, sorry to tell you, that a costume doesn’t make them understand scripture, much as idolaters think they do.
LikeLike
If that is so, you are firmly in the unsaved camp, as you clearly have no idea what it means.
LikeLike
..
.
.
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis convened his cardinal advisers to chart the reform of the Vatican bureaucracy Tuesday after acknowledging resistance to his changes but saying he welcomes the debate and is nevertheless undeterred.
The CC needs revamping? But, the holy ghost has beed running the CC from the start. What has the HS done wrong? Or is that just another sham claim? Well, its obvious…its just another one of the million CC sham claims.
LikeLike
A large number of fails today. No one claims the Holy Ghost runs the church, He simply protects it from doctrinal error – get in touch and ask for His help.
LikeLike
Doctrinal error. cathols just deny catholic doctrine when it becomes embarrassing. My fave is that only cathols are saved. Cathols deny this doctrine and have tacked on a rider so as to be politically correct.
LikeLike
Only those who are believers in Christ can be saved. Since Christ founded a Church, the safest refuge is it.
LikeLike
I think the commentaries on scripture are helpful because the essence of scripture does not hit us all so clearly and understandably. I found Luther’s essays on Paul enlightening, for example.
LikeLike
“forgotten gospels”
I know to whom and to what you are referring but I still think there is a lot of efficacy. It seems only natural that over such a huge area of the empire and so many little communities here and there , there must have been a lot of written things they used and were unique to different and distant areas. Although not canonized they still would seem important as elements or original church in it’s diverse forms and legitimate (lost Christianities) if they brought to and held these people in Christ.
LikeLike
What a great post!
It has become very clear to me that no church, no theologian, no follower of Christ actually lives out their faith based on the idea of Sola Scriptura. I’ve never met anyone who does. The New Testament church certainly did not. Our beliefs are shaped by those who have gone before us and who tell us what the scriptures teach.
Catholic and Orthodox brother and sisters are at least honest enough to admit this.
We protestants, on the other hand, are blinded by our own traditions. We say we believe in the Bible alone, but our theology is shaped by how men in the 15th century understood it. Calvin, is our tradition. Or, Arminius. Or some later day theologian. We interpret the scriptures through the filter of their theology which is shapes our own.
We get around this apparent contradiction by believing that our hermeneutic principles of interpreting the Bible are the ones the writers themselves used. How any protestant believer can not see that we ALSO use tradition to interpret the scriptures baffles me. Of course we do! The discussion should not be about tradition vs scripture. Rather, is should focus on whose tradition is closer to the New Testament era.
LikeLike
Jim. I really appreciate the irenic nature of your reply. You see what I am driving at, which is precisely what you say. We all have our traditions, and the key point is that we can all learn from each other.
I know that the Catholic Church has been reminded by our Protestant brothers and sisters just how important the study of Scripture is. That has been part of our tradition, but not one we emphasised as much as we might have after the Reformation.
We get so much further in His name when we try to love one another – as he said we should if we were truly His.
LikeLike
It is also a Protestant tradition that each of us have a personal relationship with God and although many reach foolish conclusions and heresy abounds, the cumulative sharing of such in individual testimony is also a tradition to be valued.
LikeLike
It is indeed, and Catholics too have it, but, sadly, talk less about it.
LikeLike