Were The New Testament Documents Considered Scripture By The Early Church?

Who decided what books were going to make it into the New Testament?

Were the New Testament documents considered to be Scripture by the early church?

You know, the truth is that most Christians have not even considered these questions.

Most Christians don't even think about them.

Even though there has been a relentless assault on the Bible in movies, television, books and on the internet, most Christians still stick their heads in the sand and won't even think about where the Bible originally came from.

Rather than being able to defend the Bible, we have noticed that most believers in Christ have NO IDEA where the Bible came from.....

thefinalhour.blogspot.com...

Protestant hypocrites .

Fact #5) We have approximately 50 manuscripts of the New Testament that PRE-DATE the Roman takeover of the established church in the 4th century. So there WAS a New Testament before Rome ever called a "council".

Fact #6) We have more than 32 THOUSAND New Testament quotations from the early church writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In fact, we could recreate virtually the entire New Testament just from the scripture quotations of the early church writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We can be QUITE certain that the New Testament we have today has come down to us just as it was from the earliest days, and we can be QUITE certain of what the early Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries considered to be Scripture.

Yes, the Roman government came along in the 4th century and corrupted and paganized the institutional church. There were many Christians who resisted this, and they were persecuted brutally. However, Christianity and the Bible were doing JUST FINE before Rome ever came on the scene. Anyone who says that the books of the New Testament were selected in the 4th century simply does not know their history.

Oh no, really? Church was always institutional.

To clear up:
The First Ecumenical Council primarily addressed the issue of Arianism (producing the original version of the Nicene Creed) and set a universal pattern for calculating the date of Pascha—the Paschalion.

likely yes, they were used as scripture.

some of the letters were known to have been circulated among the congregations. some even were addressed to more than one.

Gday,

Originally posted by MandM
Were the New Testament documents considered to be Scripture by the early church?

Not until 2nd century, no.

Consider the letter of Clement - late 1st C. he referred to the Jewish "scriptures", but to Paul as "wise writings", NOT scripture. He shows no knowledge of the Gospels (no, he doesn't - go READ it for yourself) or other epistles.

2 Peter is mentioned in the link in the OP, but this letter was forged by someone other than Peter around the middle of the 2nd C.

The NT was not considered scripture until mid 2nd C. at best.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Vojvoda
Fact #5) We have approximately 50 manuscripts of the New Testament that PRE-DATE the Roman takeover of the established church in the 4th century. So there WAS a New Testament before Rome ever called a "council".

Yes, so what?
No one claimed the NT did not exist before 4th century.

Originally posted by Vojvoda
Fact #6) We have more than 32 THOUSAND New Testament quotations from the early church writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In fact, we could recreate virtually the entire New Testament just from the scripture quotations of the early church writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

This is completely FALSE - 100% wrong.
Please show the evidence for this claim, or withdraw it.
Apologists have been saying this for centuries but have never provided evidence for it. Peter Kirby DID analyse this claim and found it completely FALSE.

Originally posted by Vojvoda
We can be QUITE certain that the New Testament we have today has come down to us just as it was from the earliest days, and we can be QUITE certain of what the early Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries considered to be Scripture.

Wrong again -
the NT changed many times over the years, including some quite significant changes, such as the words of God, and the words of Jesus himself, being changed as required by later beliefs.


Kapyong

Here are some of the CHANGES made to the NT over time :

Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances

Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene as the climax.

G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.

In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses

In other words -
there are at least FOUR different ways that G.Mark ends.

(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note - go check yours.)

Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time.

Thus, this is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so.

This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.)

The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence - go try it. Not one person has ever succeeded.


Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism

Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.



1 John 5:7
The Trinity

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "

This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century.
Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it".
Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get !

...

...
More changes to the NT

Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer

Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".

The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.

Now,
this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
But
early Christians could not agree what the prayer said !



Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]

Early MSS do not have "son of God".


John 9:35
Son of Man/God

Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"

Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"



Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God

"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

This passage is missing from all the early MSS.

In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".




Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.
Clear and present proof of errancy.



Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood


All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.


In sum -
the NT DID change of the years, in some very significant ways :
* The Lord's prayer
* The word of God at the baptism
* Son of man changed to Son of God
etc.


Kapyong

of course the gospels were around in the 4th century marcion is attributed with the first new testament (mid second century) although he heavily editted it just as everyone else has to fit his casue

although he argued jesus was sent by the god of the new testament to save us from the horendous murderous fiend god of the old testament

personaly if you read the new testament jesus was a bit sword happy towards the end so maybe he was sent by the old testament god to stop us bieng saved by the new testament god of love and peace, i dont know many peaceful men that look forward to the end of the world so they can come back and slaughter them a mighty head count of none believers

now for the bonus point who can figure out where hell came from? and ill give you a clue it wasnt the early versions of gospels

the irony of the gospels describing unbelivers deaths as the same thing most athiests beleive it to be an end with nothing after it .. maybe athiests wrote it

[edit on 23/1/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 23/1/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by MandM


The proof of genuineness varies in kind and in quantity, Sir Isaac Newton, whose name is synonymous with loyalty to facts, said, "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament, then in any profane history whatever."

Proof exists showing the NT has existed under the names of its several authors from the fourth century to the present. And since the canon became finally settled during that century, the genuineness of those writings has been generally accepted. Those familiar with the history of the civilized world know that references to the NT are interwoven with the history and literature of the last sixteen hundred years. At least three ancient manuscripts of the NT still in existence, bearing the names of their authors and held as sacred treasures in three of the worlds great libaries, date their existence from fourth century. In a single leap we may go back to 325 A.D., within less than two hundred and thirty years after the death of the last apostles And in that same century, the fourth council of Carthage, in 387 A.D. published a list of the books of the NT that agrees perfectly with the canon of the NT as we know it today.

Similar lists may be found in the theological writins of Augustine and Jerome, which were published about the same time. Eusebius, elected bishop of Caesarea in 315 A.D., published in his Ecclesiastical History, a list of the books of the NT that agrees exactly with our NT both as to books and authors. He writes that here was some question about the books of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation; but adds that they were genereally received and that he himself accepts them. (Christian Theology, Church of God).

In the third century I found proof of the NT being genuine similar to those already mentioned from the fourth century. Origen was born in 184 A.D., less than one hundred years after the death of the apostle John. Active in 230 A.D.. Origen was probably the most learned in the Scriptures of any of the Greek fathers. It is said according to Jerome, he had the Scriptures memorized. One living so near the time of the apostls and of such wide knowledge must be regarded as possessing dependable information concerning the authorship of the NT. Origen's list of NT books includes none not accepted today and all of those we recgnize exceept the Epistles of James and Jude. His omission of these seems to be unintentional, since in other writings he ackowledges them as belonging to the canon.

Going back to the last half of the second century we find among the eminent church fathers Tertullian, who was born about 150 A.D., less than fifty-five years after the last apostle. He was a writer in defense of Christianity, who quoted much of the NT, including all the books except four of the shorter epistles. Now, he gave no list of accepted NT books, however, I believe that he did not doubt them.

Irenaeus was born in 120 A.D., and became a disciple of Polycarp, who was personally acquainted with the apostle John. He testifies that each of the four Gospels was written by its reputed author. Justin Martyr, who died in 148 A.D. quotes from the Gospels, and Papias, born in 80 A.D., was a "hearer of John" and a disciple of Polycarp. He gives valuable testimony to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark as written by their reputed authors.

Genuine writings of thress of the church fathers have come down to us; that of Clement of Rome, who died in 101 A.D.; Polycarp, who died in 166 A.D.; and Ignatius, who was martyred in 107 A.D. These three have left us in their writings over one hundred quotations from the NT, representing every book but four ( 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John). As proof of the geuineness of the NT we look to these early writers' confirmation of the authorship of the NT books and regard them with the greatest respect.

We (Christian scholar's) have traced the records of the NT documents back to the time when the apostles lived. The evidence of their genuineness is complete, and is probably stronger than that supporting Greek and Roman classical writings. Yet these writings are accepted as genuine. What right is there in the argument that some NT documents were "forged by learned monks during the dark ages?"

You must remember that the writings of the NT was a gradual process. Several books were written for the immediate purpose of supplying needs of the early church. These writings were distributed in countries or cities throughout the Roman Empire. They were regared as true and divinely inspiried Scriptures. "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the othr Scriptures, to their own edestruction." ( 2 Peter 3:16) Here Peter is talking about Paul and how hard it is to sometimes understand what Paul is writng about. But like Peter points out, it is Paul who is doing the writng. These early writings were later collected into one volume known at the New Testament. Tertullian, born a little more than fifty-five years after the death of John, refers to the collection as the NT, composed of two parts, the "gospels" and "apostles."

Three of the most valued ancient manuscripts are; the Sinaitic,, which is housed in the British Museum; the Vatucan manuscrpt, in the Vatican at Rome, and the Alexanndrian manuscript in the British Museum. All three manuscripts date back to the fourth century and are corroborated by hundreds of other manuscripts which verify our text today.

The NT was originally written in Greek. The propagation of Christianity in lands where the Greek was not commonly known required the translation of the NT into these languages, which were made a a very early date. Probably the oldest is the Syiac, orPehitta, at translation into the Aramaic for use in the Syian churches as early as the second century. And according to some Syriac scholars there could have been translations before the close of the first century. When compared with the Greek texts these translations were found to be practically identical, though they were not brought into contact with our Greek NT until the sixteenth century, having been in the keeping of the Eastern churches. This remarkable confirmation of the integrity of the NT text shows its similarity to the content of the Syriac Version written in the second century.

The Old Latin Version was translated in North Africa about 170 A.D. for the Latin speaking churches. Jerome revised this text which is know as the Vulgate (383-404), the accepted authorized text of the Roman Catholic Church. Again the agreement between the Greek text and the Vulgate shows the latter to be practically the same as that of the second century.

So have the Nt texts been duped or tamped with. I don't believe so. There is so much harmony within the four Gospels and the OT can be found to be in harmony with the NT. When you put it ALL TOGETHER, one has to come to ponder upon the hand of God to make sure that His Holy Word still came to us with the core meaning intact.


Peace to you,
Grandma

an intriguing question with more intriguing replies.........i believe it is impossible to "surely know," if the New Testament documents were considered Scripture by the early church...surely they were known.......yet there were hundred of other gospels, acts, letters, and other "religious" documents, and beliefs that were equally known, practiced and followed.......for example, some claim the Didache held great accord among a great amount of folks -

we all know that Scripture as we know - nicely bound in a neat book - was not what those who lived in the first three centuries or so knew......not at all.

Gday,

Originally posted by Grandma
Going back to the last half of the second century we find among the eminent church fathers Tertullian, who was born about 150 A.D., less than fifty-five years after the last apostle.

Why did you give his birthdate, and not his writing date?
Hmmm?
Tertullian's writings date from late 2nd century - one and a half centuries after the alleged events.

Originally posted by Grandma
Irenaeus was born in 120 A.D.,

Again you misleadingly give the birth-date instead of the date of writing. Irenaeus' writing dates to late 2nd century - over a century and a half after the alleged events.

Originally posted by Grandma
and became a disciple of Polycarp, who was personally acquainted with the apostle John.

In fact, the writings of Polycarp say NOTHING about being acquainted the apostle John. There are several Johns confused in this period. Later Christians got it wrong, and now this claim is endlessly repeated by apologists though it is not based in fact.

Grandma - can you present any evidence that Polycarp was personally acquainted with the apostle John? I mean from the ancient writings such as Polycarp himself - not recent Christian's belief.

Originally posted by Grandma
He testifies that each of the four Gospels was written by its reputed author.

No, he CLAIMS the Gospels were written by the four, but he is the FIRST to do so. Irenaeus is the very FIRST Christian writer to give the name of the Four Evangelists. It is probable that Irenaeus GAVE the Gospels their title. Before this time, almost all references to a "Gospel" (remember that Papias does NOT refer to a "Gospel") are as UN-named books.

Originally posted by Grandma
Justin Martyr, who died in 148 A.D. quotes from the Gospels,

But his quotes are DIFFERENT !
(Do you really not know that Grandma? Do you really not know that the quotes in Justin Martyr are NOT all the the same as modern Gospels?)

And he never gives any NAMES of authors, even though he specifically name the books as "the memoirs of the apostles" and notes they are "called Gospels". This is more evidence that the Gospels were UN-NAMED in this period (along with several other references to written Gospels with NO names.)

Originally posted by Grandma
and Papias, born in 80 A.D.,

(Again with the misleading birth-date. Please provide the evidence that Papias was born in 80A.D.)

Papias wrote in the 130s or so, probably - we do NOT have his books anymore, just some quotes of it.

Originally posted by Grandma
was a "hearer of John" and a disciple of Polycarp.

WHICH John, Grandma? NOT any apostle, that's for sure.
Please provide the actual evidence from the ancient writers for your claims.

Originally posted by Grandma
He gives valuable testimony to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark as written by their reputed authors.

Papias describes two books, NOT called Gospels, which do NOT match our current Gospels at all!

Papias describes a book written by Matthew in Hebrew - however our G.Matthew was written in Greek. They don't match.

Papias describes a book written by Mark in Rome as Peter's recollections, but out of order - however, our modern G.Mark is not a recollections of Peter, and it is not out of order. They don't match.



Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Grandma
Genuine writings of thress of the church fathers have come down to us; that of Clement of Rome,

Clement of Rome does NOT quote the Gospels, and he does NOT call Paul "scripture".
members.iinet.net.au...

Originally posted by Grandma
Polycarp, who died in 166 A.D.;

Yes, mid 2nd century Polycarp knew some NT documents, but he does NOT refer to any Gospels by name.

Originally posted by Grandma
and Ignatius, who was martyred in 107 A.D.

Ignatius does NOT refer to any Gospels by name, or give any clear quotes, but he does know some of the Jesus story.

Originally posted by Grandma
These three have left us in their writings over one hundred quotations from the NT,

Yes, we have quotes of Paul from late 1st C, but :
* the earliest quotes from Gospels are mid 2nd C.
* the earliest to name the four Gospels is late 2nd C.\
* the earliest to know the Gospel stories and names and events are mid 2nd C.

In other words - the Gospel story about Jesus was unknown to Christians before the Gospels arose; and only after the Gospels become known do the stories of the life and events and characters about Jesus become known and then endlessly repeated.

Originally posted by Grandma
representing every book but four ( 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John).

I am sceptical of this claim - please provide the evidence.

Originally posted by Grandma
As proof of the geuineness of the NT we look to these early writers' confirmation of the authorship of the NT books and regard them with the greatest respect.

The earliest writers you cited - Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin etc. had no connection what-so-ever with anyone who ever met any Jesus. All we have is some BELIEVERS who received some BOOKS and believed them.

Just like you believe them - all you have done here is list some earlier Christians who believed them.

But all those early Christians lived a CENTURY or more after Jesus, and have no direct knowledge of any person in the stories.

Originally posted by Grandma
We (Christian scholar's) have traced the records of the NT documents back to the time when the apostles lived.

No you didn't. You traced them back to no earlier than mid-late 2nd Century - a CENTURY or more after the alleged events.

The trail stopped cold there.
None of the writers you cited had any connection with 1st generation Christians.

Polycarp did NOT know the apostle John. If YOU believe he did, please quote where Polycarp said he knew John. (Please do NOT quote me a long long list of Christian who BELIEVE and CLAIM he did, OK? Please ?)


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Grandma
The evidence of their genuineness is complete,

What evidence?
All you have is some Christians who BELIEVED some books of unknown origin (we don't know exactly who wrote most of the NT really.)

And what does "genuine" even MEAN in this context?

You have certainly NOT shown the NT books were written by the person Christians BELIEVE - scholars agree that not one single book in the Nt was written by anyone who ever met any Jesus.

The Greek and Roman writings are genuine ancient books, so are the NT books - so what? Do you think being somehow "genuine" means true?
Because scholars agree neither the NT, nor the Greek and Roman writings, are necessarily all true.

Originally posted by Grandma
They were regared as true and divinely inspiried Scriptures.

So what?
Muslims believe THEIR book is inspired too.
Belief means nothing.

Originally posted by Grandma
"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the othr Scriptures, to their own edestruction." ( 2 Peter 3:16)

Oh dear.
2 Peter is the the latest book in the entire NT probably. It was forged in the mid 2nd century, not by Peter.

Originally posted by Grandma
Here Peter is talking about Paul and how hard it is to sometimes understand what Paul is writng about. But like Peter points out, it is Paul who is doing the writng.

So an unknown forger wrote a book in the name of someone else only found in books of unknown origin, and discussing other books from somone else, that no-one in history ever actually met. And you think this is evidence? Outside of the NT, there is NO EVIDENCE that any Christian in the Gospel stories actually existed. None.

It's all stories and beliefs about earlier stories and beliefs.
No evidence anywhere.

Originally posted by Grandma
Tertullian, born a little more than fifty-five years after the death of John,

You keep dishonestly doing this!
What does his BIRTHDAY have to do with anything? Did he start absorbing Christian beliefs through his skin from the day he was born?

What does 55 years prove?
Did John's evidence hang in the air like a bad smell for 55 years until Tertullian came along to breathe it in?

Furthermore we have NO EVIDENCE at all for the death of John, but Christians BELIEVE he lived a very long life so they can make just these sort of empty arguments.

In fact -
Tertullian wrote in late 2nd Century - a good CENTURY and a half after the alleged events. But by stretching John's life out to it's max, and then bringing Tertullian back to his birth, Grandma has misleadingly reduced a gap of a CENTURY and HALF down to 55 years !

Tertullian never met John anyway !


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Grandma
Three of the most valued ancient manuscripts are; the Sinaitic,, which is housed in the British Museum; the Vatucan manuscrpt, in the Vatican at Rome, and the Alexanndrian manuscript in the British Museum. All three manuscripts date back to the fourth century and are corroborated by hundreds of other manuscripts which verify our text today.

Wow.
In fact, all three of these MSS are very different - from each other, and from modern Bibles. Did you know that Grandma?

There are significant differences between these bibles and our modern ones - entire BOOKS have been moved out since then. Did you know that these MSS have some different entire BOOKS than modern Bibles Grandma?

Originally posted by Grandma
When compared with the Greek texts these translations were found to be practically identical, though they were not brought into contact with our Greek NT until the sixteenth century, having been in the keeping of the Eastern churches. This remarkable confirmation of the integrity of the NT text shows its similarity to the content of the Syriac Version written in the second century.

Complete rubbish.
All MSS of the Greek and different, and the Syriac has many differences too.

Originally posted by Grandma
The Old Latin Version was translated in North Africa about 170 A.D. for the Latin speaking churches. Jerome revised this text which is know as the Vulgate (383-404), the accepted authorized text of the Roman Catholic Church. Again the agreement between the Greek text and the Vulgate shows the latter to be practically the same as that of the second century.

In fact there are many differences between the Vulgate and the Greek MSS.

Originally posted by Grandma
So have the Nt texts been duped or tamped with. I don't believe so.

Of course you don't believe it.
Because you are a faithful believer.
But the facts show it is true.

In my post above I showed a list of significant differences made to the NT over the years - will you address that post Grandma?

Originally posted by Grandma
There is so much harmony within the four Gospels and the OT can be found to be in harmony with the NT. When you put it ALL TOGETHER, one has to come to ponder upon the hand of God to make sure that His Holy Word still came to us with the core meaning intact.

Then why can no Christian come up with a harmosined account of Easter Sunday morning? I mean an account that contains every single part of every single Gospel account. It cannot be done, it has never been done.

Why is that, Grandma?

I am NOT asking for a paraphrased version - I want you to take every single verse about Easter Sunday from all four Gospels and place them in order without leaving any out, and have it make sense.

Will you try, Grandma?
Every verse.


Kapyong

Three hundred years after the beginning of Jesus' personal ministry, the whole Roman world had deserted paganism and become Chritian. The gospel had been preached in the remotest countries of the then known world. Under similar conditions, no other religion has been known to spread so rapidly, and it would appear that natural causes were inadequate to produce the far reaching results accomplished by earlly Christianity.

Christianity had to surmount several obstacles, any one of which was capable of impeding the progress of the gospel. These obstacles were: (1)Christianity excluded ALL other religions, not only Judaism, out of which it grew, but paganism which it deemed worthless,. Chrisstianity call ALL MEN to forsake their former beliefs and to believe and follow the teachings of Jesus. (2) Such exclusiveness incurred the hatred and opposition of the powerful priesthoods of ALL religions. Chief opposers were the Jewish priests who had opposed Jesus and his apostles. (3) The magistrates and other civil authorities influenced by the priests, opposed the gospel as they saught to crucify Christ. (4) Jewish doctors and philosophers were also against Christiantiy because it set their wisdom at nothing. (5)The common people opposed Christianity because it exposed their sins, by showing them their own self-righteousnes and hypocrity. (6) The crucifixion of the leader of the movement while it was in its INFANCY brought discouragement and depression to his followers in the beginning of the work. With such powerful odds against it, the wonder is that the gospel DID NOT PERISH at its very start. The fact that it was successful and able to surmount ALL these is evidence that there was a SUPERNATURAL power supporting Christianity.

The gospel was mostly taught by unlearned men of a despised race. This fact alone makes the obstcles to the progess of the gospel appear the more formidable. The Jews were regareded by the ruling classes as barbarians and despised as such. The apostles were little known Galileans, despised by other Jews. Ignorant of the teachings of Jewish thrologians or heathen philosophers, the apostles were nonetheless strikingly profound in their arguments. As the Bible says, God chose the weak things of the world to confound the wise and mighty. Early Christian leaders had little wealth to give them status or influence; they had not strong position in civil power, and they did not court human favor.

The gospel itself asked the believer to believe in a crucified Jew not merely as a good man, not as a prophet, nor as a king, but as the Son of God. This claim to divinity could alone have defeated early Christianity. His being a Jew and having been subjected by a Roman governor to death which was inflicted only on the lowest criminals, the gospel would have seemed the least likely of all messages to find acceptance. The message was repugnant to men because it demanded that the believer forsake not only his vilest sins, but all sin. Futhermore, he had to be willing to forsake all that he had. It is indeed a marvel that this message was accepted by anyone.

During the seventy years from 30 to 100 A.D., strong churches were raised up throughout the Roman world. Even far off Britian heard the gospel during this time. The ONLY religion whose progess approximates that of Christianity is Mohammedanism.

Christianity began to be propagated in the Augustian Age, the golden age of Rome, when the science, philosophy, and theology of the ancients was in the full blaze of its glory. Christianity arose in the metropolis of a nation noted for literatue and intelligence, among schools and synagogue. I believe that on the ground that God was with Christ and his apostles can the success of EARLY CHRISTIANITY be accounted for. This success was a miracle, and possible only with the power of God.

The early church fathers were subject to persecuton, imprisonment, and death itself. Yet they affirmed their belief in the events of the Gospels. Many of them were eye-witness to the miracles of Christ and his resurrection.. Would men choose to suffer dishnor, persecution, and violent deaths in defense of something they KNEW to be FALSE? On the other hand, if these men knew the things they taught to be true they could not doubt them. Their reason for their affirmation of these things under such circumstances is ONE reason for our BELIEVING them today.

To be a credible witness one must have adequate knowledge and dependable honesty. I believe the Gospel writers possess these qualities. They had full opportunity to know that facts concerning the events they relate its certain. Matthew and John were with Jesus throughout his ministry. They lived with him, learned at his feet, and witnessed his miracles over and over again. They were among his most intimate friends. They could not have been deceived. The historian, unlike the fiction writer, focuses on the TIME, PLACE, AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, relating to a given event that can be investigated by another. It is in this way the gospel writers tell their story and hammer out their apostolic histories of events surrounding Jesus' ministry. I believe the most convincing proof that these writers were honest in their accounts is the fact they were willing to suffer disgrace, persecution, even death in defense of what they wrote! What then could have been their motive for deception? What had they to gain but loss of life? And when they were offered the choice between recanting their faith and death, THEY ALL without hesitation CHOSE death. Apparently they WERE firmly convinced of what they wrote.

It really doesn't take too much to wrap your head around the fact that the Gospels were written by who they say they are. Yes, there is not conclusive proof of some to the writing. That is why we look to the early church historians who kept records to go back to and compare too. There may be some differences in some verses.......but the core of the message is still the same and THAT never is compromised, never.

Now, one still has the choice to believe that our NT was carried down throug the ages by the early church fathers to enlighen the masses of the love of the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. We have many people througout history to thank for all they went through so we would have the Word today.

I am not asking anyone to believe. I am just asking them to see with open eyes that the Gospel was so loved after the death of Christ that is was kept so sacred and safe so we could have it today.

Peace to you,
Grandma

Originally posted by Grandma

These obstacles were: (1)Christianity excluded ALL other religions, not only Judaism, out of which it grew, but paganism which it deemed worthless,. Chrisstianity call ALL MEN to forsake their former beliefs and to believe and follow the teachings of Jesus.

which the romans got around by making pagan things christian things and killing anyone who decide they wernt happy with having 1 god and thier pagan things renamed

virgin mary .. pagan
every christian special day .... pagan
catholic priest dress code ... pagan
hot cross buns for easter ...pagan
most of the stories in the bible have pagan origins

it didnt defeat paganism it became it

During the seventy years from 30 to 100 A.D., strong churches were raised up throughout the Roman world. Even far off Britian heard the gospel during this time. The ONLY religion whose progess approximates that of Christianity is Mohammedanism.

and the funny thing about this none of the gospels existed for at least the first 30-35 years of this period and john was written sometime between 90-100AD ... so what were they reading for the first 30-35 years?

and christianity didnt gain a foot hold in britain until the mid second century ...around 150AD when it was basically a cult and didnt really kick off until later

I am sorry, but you missed my whole point that the early church did have copies of the testaments. They passed these around to each other aan to other cities. And as was custom at that time was alos oral teachings of the gospels. We can trace the NT back to the fourth century.

And the gospel DID get to Britian, does it really matter when? The point is they did HEAR the GOOD NEWS and some believed.

You don't need to believe. I know you get a lot of happiness out of bashing Christian threads........but you really do not discourage me or my faith.

Thank you for your reply


Peace to you,
Grandm

Greetings Grandma,

I answered your post point by point in detail.

Will you do me the same courtesy and answer the points I raised?


Kapyong

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Kapyong]

No, I am sorry you did not answer my post point by point. You ATTACKED my post in areas where it really did not matter.

I beleive the core of my post still stands. I did show the early church can be traced back to the 4th century. Yes, I did use the dates of the birth of the historians but that was to show how close to Apsotle John they could be traced to. You can not prove that Polycarp was not a disciple of the apsotle John anymore than I can prove that he was not. But the common tradation is held by many theologians do hold true to that Polycarp was John's disciple and that Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp is commomly held to be fact.

But the FACT that remains the most telling is that the early church fathers stayed together after Jesus' death and resurrection. Their were eye wittnesses throughout the ministry of Jesus and his disciples, his death, and his resurrection. As I said before, the fact that the early church stayed together at all after the death of Christ is a miracle in and of itself at all.

Three of the ancient manuscripts are: the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian which are in the British Museum in London; and the Vatican manuscript that is in the Vatican at Rome. All 3 date bact to the 4th century. Plus there are hundreds of other manuscripts that corroborate the the Sinaitic, Alexandrian and the Vatican manuscripts.

I believe the Scriptures are divinely inspired. You may not...I don't know but that does not give you the right to rip my post apart.

I thank you for your input and you point of view.......it is just not mine.


Peace to you!
Grandma