Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Bible, and other doctrines.

CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:24:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?

If we cling to this belief and give it any weight than nothing older than a couple of decades will mean anything and all beliefs systems will be tarnished, disheartened or lost leaving us to believe in the latest pop culture phenomena only until it reaches an age where it can no longer be counted as credible.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:33:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:24:53 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?

If we cling to this belief and give it any weight than nothing older than a couple of decades will mean anything and all beliefs systems will be tarnished, disheartened or lost leaving us to believe in the latest pop culture phenomena only until it reaches an age where it can no longer be counted as credible.

nothing like living in the present.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:42:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:33:47 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:24:53 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?

If we cling to this belief and give it any weight than nothing older than a couple of decades will mean anything and all beliefs systems will be tarnished, disheartened or lost leaving us to believe in the latest pop culture phenomena only until it reaches an age where it can no longer be counted as credible.

nothing like living in the present.

And having no beliefs? No thanks.

I'll risk it.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?

Uh.. the non-retranslated docs are in pretty good condition.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:00:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:51:32 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?

Uh.. the non-retranslated docs are in pretty good condition.

Yes they are. The original gospels are wonderful.

Vatican treasure vault for the win!
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 6:40:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 12:00:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:51:32 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?

Uh.. the non-retranslated docs are in pretty good condition.

Yes they are. The original gospels are wonderful.

Vatican treasure vault for the win!

You are aware we don't have the original gospels, aren't you?
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:33:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 6:40:15 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/26/2012 12:00:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:51:32 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/25/2012 7:48:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Just a question that has probably been tossed around for all of existence:

If the bible were written by the hands of God, still, you don't supposed after thousands of years of retranslation that it never has been effected by the 'telephone' phenomena?

Uh.. the non-retranslated docs are in pretty good condition.

Yes they are. The original gospels are wonderful.

Vatican treasure vault for the win!

You are aware we don't have the original gospels, aren't you?

They're re-re-re-re-re-re-translated so yeah, they probably don't have that aura of authenticity anymore.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 10:51:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 12:00:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Yes they are. The original gospels are wonderful.
Yes. Pick one of the current 5,000 Greek manuscripts that scholars can't distinguish between.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:01:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
here is the story of how the bible was written. 2012 years ago some Jewish farmer said "hey this will make a great story" and here we are today and 2012 years from now people will be arguing over pokeism the believe that pikachu is the son of god and we should all feel his loving glow. pika pika!
Slimy yet satisfying"
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:49:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 6:40:15 AM, Meatros wrote:


You are aware we don't have the original gospels, aren't you?

Yes but we have about five thousand hand written Greek manuscripts that have a 99.5% consistency rate with no major Christian doctrines in jeopardy in these differences. We also have 8,000-10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus a total of 8,000 manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 6:54:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 9:49:52 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/26/2012 6:40:15 AM, Meatros wrote:


You are aware we don't have the original gospels, aren't you?

Yes but we have about five thousand hand written Greek manuscripts that have a 99.5% consistency rate with no major Christian doctrines in jeopardy in these differences. We also have 8,000-10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus a total of 8,000 manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian.

How can you determine a consistency rate when we do not have the originals and we only have bits and pieces of copies of copies from 100 + years after they were first written down. For all we know, the original documents were completely different from what we have now. Even Paul said there were false doctrines going around in his day - who is to say that a proto-Mark, which the other Gospels depend on, was not the very document he was referring to?

As to 'major christian doctrine' that depends I suppose. The addition onto Mark, with the resurrection appearances seems pretty major to me.

Further, *most* of the manuscripts you are talking about are from hundreds of years after the fact - quite a bit from a period when people were professional copiers - which is why the error rate is worse the further back in time you go and levels off at around the time when Christianity became the dominant religion.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 8:17:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 6:54:40 AM, Meatros wrote:


How can you determine a consistency rate when we do not have the originals and we only have bits and pieces of copies of copies from 100 + years after they were first written down. For all we know, the original documents were completely different from what we have now. Even Paul said there were false doctrines going around in his day - who is to say that a proto-Mark, which the other Gospels depend on, was not the very document he was referring to?

As to 'major christian doctrine' that depends I suppose. The addition onto Mark, with the resurrection appearances seems pretty major to me.

Further, *most* of the manuscripts you are talking about are from hundreds of years after the fact - quite a bit from a period when people were professional copiers - which is why the error rate is worse the further back in time you go and levels off at around the time when Christianity became the dominant religion.

We determine the consistency rate between the the hand written Greek manuscripts that we have.

"The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like [...] Even if we had no Greek manuscripts today, by piecing together the information from these translations [Latin, Syriac, Coptic] from a relatively early date, we could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentary's, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers"

-Bruce Metzger (Masters from Princeton theological seminary, Masters and Doctorate from Princeton university, Author/Editor of fifty books about the historic reliability of the gospels)

"The [new testament] is simply the best textually supported book from the ancient world."

-Norman Geisler (PhD)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 8:19:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 6:54:40 AM, Meatros wrote:


As to 'major christian doctrine' that depends I suppose. The addition onto Mark, with the resurrection appearances seems pretty major to me.


The resurrection is not in question. Paul had already recorded it earlier. It's simply not in question as a "major Christian docriine."
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 8:38:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 8:17:08 AM, stubs wrote:

We determine the consistency rate between the the hand written Greek manuscripts that we have.


So after a few hundred years they remained consistent. This is your stance?

"The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like [...] Even if we had no Greek manuscripts today, by piecing together the information from these translations [Latin, Syriac, Coptic] from a relatively early date, we could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentary's, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers"

-Bruce Metzger (Masters from Princeton theological seminary, Masters and Doctorate from Princeton university, Author/Editor of fifty books about the historic reliability of the gospels)


This doesn't actually account for my criticism. As Bart Ehrman pointed out the close to the events the more changes we witness. I actually pointed out the pasted on ending of Mark as an evidence of this. After a certain point of time (a few hundred years later?) all the manuscripts have the ending. We know the earliest ones did not though.

"The [new testament] is simply the best textually supported book from the ancient world."

-Norman Geisler (PhD)

That may be true, but that's not saying much, as I've pointed out. Yes, after a certain point, when professional scribes came onto the scene, the copies were fairly stable.

Before that though? We cannot say. There is also a problem of which manuscripts to accept. Why should we just accept church canon?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 8:39:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 8:19:00 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/27/2012 6:54:40 AM, Meatros wrote:


As to 'major christian doctrine' that depends I suppose. The addition onto Mark, with the resurrection appearances seems pretty major to me.


The resurrection is not in question. Paul had already recorded it earlier. It's simply not in question as a "major Christian docriine."

I would contend it is - I do not think that Paul had in mind a physical resurrection. Further, the appearances to the disciples would be in question and the nature of his resurrection would also be in question - both are important to Christian doctrine.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:10:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Bible ony came about in 4A.D. before this most christians orally passed the faith on. Only a few literate clerics had maybe one, ormaybe two gospels to refer to. The Chuch decided to bring together all the gospels from all different geographical regions and sort through what ones to keep. They also had to decide what ones were compatible with the oral traditions they knew to be true. So adding and taking away from the context came from oral tradition that they knew to be true. There may have been some teachings early christians did not put on paper as it was common knowledge to everyone, like the ressurection for example.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:21:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 8:39:12 AM, Meatros wrote:


I would contend it is - I do not think that Paul had in mind a physical resurrection. Further, the appearances to the disciples would be in question and the nature of his resurrection would also be in question - both are important to Christian doctrine.

I would respectfully disagree with the statement that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection. I simply see not reason to think that.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:22:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:10:34 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
The Bible ony came about in 4A.D. before this most christians orally passed the faith on. Only a few literate clerics had maybe one, ormaybe two gospels to refer to. The Chuch decided to bring together all the gospels from all different geographical regions and sort through what ones to keep. They also had to decide what ones were compatible with the oral traditions they knew to be true. So adding and taking away from the context came from oral tradition that they knew to be true. There may have been some teachings early christians did not put on paper as it was common knowledge to everyone, like the ressurection for example.

Um...

No.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:25:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 8:38:04 AM, Meatros wrote:


Before that though? We cannot say. There is also a problem of which manuscripts to accept. Why should we just accept church canon?

There were several test for the canon. Things as they had to be tied to an apostle, and be accepted by a large majority of the church. The dating could have also played a role. That's why Thomas was probably not included. One because it seems to teach differently than the other gospels and it either quotes or alludes to 15 or 16 of the other NT books I believe. Which shows it is dated much later.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:25:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:21:07 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/27/2012 8:39:12 AM, Meatros wrote:


I would contend it is - I do not think that Paul had in mind a physical resurrection. Further, the appearances to the disciples would be in question and the nature of his resurrection would also be in question - both are important to Christian doctrine.

I would respectfully disagree with the statement that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection. I simply see not reason to think that.

There's a lot of reasons which have been argued, most effectively by Richard Carrier. Here's a [URL="http://www.infidels.org...;]debate he had[/URL]. Also, [URL="http://www.amazon.com...;]here's a book[/URL] where his argument is fully fleshed out.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:29:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:22:39 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 9:10:34 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
The Bible ony came about in 4A.D. before this most christians orally passed the faith on. Only a few literate clerics had maybe one, ormaybe two gospels to refer to. The Chuch decided to bring together all the gospels from all different geographical regions and sort through what ones to keep. They also had to decide what ones were compatible with the oral traditions they knew to be true. So adding and taking away from the context came from oral tradition that they knew to be true. There may have been some teachings early christians did not put on paper as it was common knowledge to everyone, like the ressurection for example.

Um...

No.

Please enlighten me. I think your reply is very vague. I am not the most learned person and would be very grateful for some of your input.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:33:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:25:03 AM, stubs wrote:

There were several test for the canon. Things as they had to be tied to an apostle, and be accepted by a large majority of the church.

What sort of tests? Further, we know the Gospels are anonymous and not eye witnesses. The people who determined Canon did not know this.

The dating could have also played a role.

They wouldn't have known anything about the dating, how could they?

That's why Thomas was probably not included. One because it seems to teach differently than the other gospels and it either quotes or alludes to 15 or 16 of the other NT books I believe. Which shows it is dated much later.

Thomas was not included because it was a gnostic text. Early Christianity was divided pretty substantially in the early days between the Gnostics (who grew more gnostic as time went on) and what we see today.

As to dating, scholars place it between 50-140 AD.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

There are scholars who actually place it before Mark.

If Thomas were dependent upon the synoptic gospels, it would be possible to detect in the case of every Thomas-synoptic parallel the same tradition-historical development behind both the Thomas version of the saying and one or more of the synoptic versions. That is, Thomas' author/editor, in taking up the synoptic version, would have inherited all of the accumulated tradition-historical baggage owned by the synoptic text, and then added to it his or her own redactional twist. In the following texts this is not the case. Rather than reflecting the same tradition-historical development that stands behind their synoptic counterparts, these Thomas sayings seem to be the product of a tradition-history which, though exhibiting the same tendencies operative within the synoptic tradition, is in its own specific details quite unique. This means, of course, that these sayings are not dependent upon their synoptic counterparts, but rather derive from a parallel and separate tradition.

On the dating:

Determining a plausible date of composition is speculative and depends on a delicate weighing of critical judgments about the history of the transmission of the sayings-of-Jesus tradition and the process of the formation of the written gospel texts. The earliest possible date would be in the middle of the 1st century, when sayings collections such as the Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q first began to be compiled. The latest possible date would be toward the end of the 2d century, prior to the copying of P. Oxy. 1 and the first reference to the text by Hippolytus. If Gos. Thom. is a sayings collection based on an autonomous tradition, and not a gospel harmony conflated from the NT, then a date of composition in, say, the last decades of the 1st century would be more likely than a mid-to-late-2d-century date.

More:

While the cumulative nature of the sayings collection understandably makes the Gospel of Thomas difficult to date with precision, several factors weigh in favor of a date well before the end of the first century: the way in which Thomas appeals to the authority of particular prominent figures (Thomas, James) against the competing claims of others (Peter, Matthew); in genre, the sayings collection, which seems to have declined in importance after the emergence of the more biographical and dialogical forms near the end of the first century; and its primitive christology, which seems to presuppose a theological climate even more primitive than the later stages of the synoptic sayings gospel, Q. Together these factors suggest a date for Thomas in the vicinity of 70-80 C.E. As for its provenance, while it is possible, even likely, that an early version of this collection associated with James circulated in the environs of Jerusalem, the Gospel of Thomas in more or less its present state comes from eastern Syria, where the popularity of the apostle Thomas (Judas Didymos Thomas) is well attested.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:33:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:10:34 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
The Bible ony came about in 4A.D. before this most christians orally passed the faith on. Only a few literate clerics had maybe one, ormaybe two gospels to refer to. The Chuch decided to bring together all the gospels from all different geographical regions and sort through what ones to keep. They also had to decide what ones were compatible with the oral traditions they knew to be true. So adding and taking away from the context came from oral tradition that they knew to be true. There may have been some teachings early christians did not put on paper as it was common knowledge to everyone, like the ressurection for example.:

The earliest possible date for the first manuscript in the NT came at least 40 years after Jesus. Even most Christian scholars concede that point. Secondly, as Meatros already pointed out, Paul stated that false gospels were rampant during that time. We have no way of knowing what heresy's, if any, have become part of the "official" story.

The Councils of Trent and Nicea were formed specifically because there were various versions of the gospel and it was spreading a lot of confusion as to who the real Jesis was
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:35:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:29:03 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/27/2012 9:22:39 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 9:10:34 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
The Bible ony came about in 4A.D. before this most christians orally passed the faith on. Only a few literate clerics had maybe one, ormaybe two gospels to refer to. The Chuch decided to bring together all the gospels from all different geographical regions and sort through what ones to keep. They also had to decide what ones were compatible with the oral traditions they knew to be true. So adding and taking away from the context came from oral tradition that they knew to be true. There may have been some teachings early christians did not put on paper as it was common knowledge to everyone, like the ressurection for example.

Um...

No.

Please enlighten me. I think your reply is very vague. I am not the most learned person and would be very grateful for some of your input.

How could the Bible come about in 4 AD, prior to the life of Jesus?
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:41:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:35:31 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 9:29:03 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/27/2012 9:22:39 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 9:10:34 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
The Bible ony came about in 4A.D. before this most christians orally passed the faith on. Only a few literate clerics had maybe one, ormaybe two gospels to refer to. The Chuch decided to bring together all the gospels from all different geographical regions and sort through what ones to keep. They also had to decide what ones were compatible with the oral traditions they knew to be true. So adding and taking away from the context came from oral tradition that they knew to be true. There may have been some teachings early christians did not put on paper as it was common knowledge to everyone, like the ressurection for example.

Um...

No.

Please enlighten me. I think your reply is very vague. I am not the most learned person and would be very grateful for some of your input.

How could the Bible come about in 4 AD, prior to the life of Jesus?

Oh I'm sorry that should be 400 AD, that was a mistake but what of the other points I made.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:47:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:41:06 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

Oh I'm sorry that should be 400 AD, that was a mistake but what of the other points I made.

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to here. Constantine basically told the Christian Bishops and such to get their act together and establish a canon at around that time. There were Gospels floating around for centuries before that though.

There were plenty of Gospels, sayings, and traditions not included. We have some still today, through sheer luck.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:04:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 9:47:00 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 9:41:06 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

Oh I'm sorry that should be 400 AD, that was a mistake but what of the other points I made.

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to here. Constantine basically told the Christian Bishops and such to get their act together and establish a canon at around that time. There were Gospels floating around for centuries before that though.

There were plenty of Gospels, sayings, and traditions not included. We have some still today, through sheer luck.

What I am saying is early Cristians did not rely to much on the gospels. Most could not read or write. Only a few church leaders had any gospels, some had none, some had one or, maybe two if they were lucky. So they mainly relied on oral tradition, which is wat they relied on before anything was written.
After the gospels were written the Church in her wisdom and guided by Holy Spirit, gathered all these writtings together and sorted what was error and what was truth. This was also helped by what they knew to be true from oral tradition. As I said before early Christians maybe deemed some things unneccassary to put on paper as it was common knowledge and basic fundment to their faith.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:11:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:04:43 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
What I am saying is early Cristians did not rely to much on the gospels. Most could not read or write. Only a few church leaders had any gospels, some had none, some had one or, maybe two if they were lucky. So they mainly relied on oral tradition, which is wat they relied on before anything was written.

Okay, I would agree with this. In fact, the early Christians would still consider themselves Jewish, i would imagine. It depends on what you mean by 'early'. In the first century, 'scripture' referred to the Old Testament.

After the gospels were written the Church in her wisdom and guided by Holy Spirit, gathered all these writtings together and sorted what was error and what was truth. This was also helped by what they knew to be true from oral tradition. As I said before early Christians maybe deemed some things unneccassary to put on paper as it was common knowledge and basic fundment to their faith.

This seems like a personal opinion.

We have to remember that early Christianity was fractured from an early stage and the Jewish wars (66-70, roughly) further fractured and spread out the faithful. This was also the time the Gospels were being written down. It's very unclear what the first Christians believed because of this.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:37:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:11:17 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:04:43 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
What I am saying is early Cristians did not rely to much on the gospels. Most could not read or write. Only a few church leaders had any gospels, some had none, some had one or, maybe two if they were lucky. So they mainly relied on oral tradition, which is wat they relied on before anything was written.

Okay, I would agree with this. In fact, the early Christians would still consider themselves Jewish, i would imagine. It depends on what you mean by 'early'. In the first century, 'scripture' referred to the Old Testament.

After the gospels were written the Church in her wisdom and guided by Holy Spirit, gathered all these writtings together and sorted what was error and what was truth. This was also helped by what they knew to be true from oral tradition. As I said before early Christians maybe deemed some things unneccassary to put on paper as it was common knowledge and basic fundment to their faith.

This seems like a personal opinion.

We have to remember that early Christianity was fractured from an early stage and the Jewish wars (66-70, roughly) further fractured and spread out the faithful. This was also the time the Gospels were being written down. It's very unclear what the first Christians believed because of this.

By early christians I mean anyone who believed in the redemption of Jesus after his death on the cross. I also mean the early Church fathers, who through logic reasoning and guidane of the Holy Spirit, decided what books should go into the Bible and what should be left out. This was also away in which all christians would know what is true and what is not. Also I do not believe in sola scripture as the protestant churches teach but how the Church developed its teachings on other things which are not in the Bible but maybe implied towards.

If you mean my opinion about early christians not putting things in writting due to the fact it was common knowledge how can such a thing be backed by fact, or even evidence. It is however what many theologians and scholars believe to be so.