Debate clip challenges non-denominational view on early church and Scripture

Discussion · 30

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

• − opinion#2260 75 likes at the source

  What would a non-denominational believer have used before compilation and canonization? Tradition.
• − opinion#2259 28 likes at the source

  Didn't have the bible for almost 700 years? What a blunder.

  • − opinion#2261 7 likes at the source

    The Council in Trullo formally ratified earlier church canons, including Carthage's list of Scripture. A book being listed earlier doesn't mean the whole canon had received formal conciliar recognition. So around the 7th century it was formally recognized.
  • − opinion#2262

    One church recognizing something in the 7th century doesn't speak for the whole church or for christians. You might want to go back and check your initial claim about early christians relying on tradition, which is weird, since all the so called early church fathers quote and base their arguments on scripture.
  • − opinion#2263 11 likes at the source

    Those were regional councils, and in 692 the Council of Trullo received earlier canonical rulings into the Church's authoritative tradition. The fact that Christians quoted Scripture earlier doesn't prove they all agreed on the exact boundaries of the canon. Quoting Scripture and settling which books officially belong in Scripture are two different things. And it's just flat false that the church fathers only quoted scripture, they also appeal to the Traditions they learned through the succession of the apostles.
  • − opinion#2264

    I never said they agreed on the canon, that's not the point, them having scripture is the point. Churches STILL don't agree on the canon today. You talk about these councils like they actually had any authority to decide what the canon is, spoiler, they didn't. And no, the early fathers don't just appeal to tradition, that sounds like a very ignorant roman belief. How about actually reading where they appeal to scripture.
  • − opinion#2265 3 likes at the source

    The fact that the books were written in the first century doesn't mean they were widespread enough that everyone, down to the common man, had them.
• − opinion#2255 6 likes at the source

  Why just flat out make up that we didn't have the Bible for 700 years?

  • − opinion#2266 28 likes at the source

    your username tells us everything we need to know about you 😂
  • − opinion#2267 1 likes at the source

    and you never answered his question, you just threw out a passive aggressive insult. Why not actually give your explanation in love?
  • − opinion#2268 13 likes at the source

    to fill in the whole picture, the full canonization of the new testament hadn't happened in the first 300 years, and the cost and time of hand copying scripture would have made a parish owning a complete New Testament prohibitively expensive for another 400 to 800 years after canonization. In the early church scripture moved parish to parish, existed as lone isolated gospels, or didn't exist at all at the average parish. That's where his 700 year dating comes from.
  • − opinion#2269 2 likes at the source

    to add to what was said above, that's why lectionaries exist
  • − opinion#2270

    That I'm a saved Christian who reads the Bible?
  • − opinion#2271

    By 95 AD revelation was finished and the scriptures were complete. Even before that, as the epistles were being written, the church had already started compiling scriptures and apostolic letters, and copying them into codices. By the beginning to mid 2nd century basically every local church had the completed scripture, with many individual preachers and soul winners having one off epistles on hand to preach the gospel. It's a lie to say churches didn't have the scriptures, and if nobody did for even 300 years that means nobody was saved, because faith cometh by hearing and hearing The Word of God. I agree it took a long time for individuals to get the Bible, but there were still completed scriptures within churches
  • − opinion#2272 7 likes at the source

    so you're saying unless you've read the Bible you can't go to heaven? Do you retards even listen to yourselves
  • − opinion#2273 1 likes at the source

    where's the evidence that individual parishes had the Bible in the 2nd century, or even in the 3rd through 15th centuries
  • − opinion#2274

    there would be a lot more evidence if the Roman pagan Catholic Church hadn't destroyed the scriptures or killed the people who had them. The evidence is in the word and promise of God himself, who promised to preserve his word to every generation
• − opinion#2258 5 likes at the source

  The bible as it exists today didn't exist 2000 years ago, but the scriptures the bible is based on absolutely did.

  • − opinion#2275 2 likes at the source

    how many people actually had access to those scriptures? How many could read? How widely were they copied and distributed? How faithful were the copies?
  • − opinion#2276

    That's completely irrelevant to the claim that the scriptures didn't exist. Also, if most people were illiterate or had no access to scriptures, how would they even know that what the church was telling them was true?
  • − opinion#2277 2 likes at the source

    apostolic oral tradition handed down by the successors of the apostles, who are the church fathers, and the church preserves and determines what is authoritative and infallible and what isn't. You do realize our church decided which books belong in this infallible book, right?
  • − opinion#2278

    yes, and that's a huge problem. If the bible were truly the inherent word of god, it shouldn't be something that gets voted on, deciding what's kept and what's left out
  • − opinion#2279

    I'm not denying it's the word of God, I'm denying it's the only infallible authority, because the Bible doesn't give you a list of what's canonical and what isn't. How do you even know there are supposed to be 4 canonical gospels in the Bible when the Bible and the gospels themselves never tell you there are supposed to be 4? 🤦‍♂️
  • − opinion#2280 1 likes at the source

    No, I agree with you. I think we're making the same point
• − opinion#2257 3 likes at the source

  It's interesting how two different people can both say they just follow the bible and end up with different interpretations.
• − opinion#2253 2 likes at the source

  Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373): taught that "the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth". Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386): warned believers not to accept even his own teachings unless backed by proof from the Holy Scriptures: "Do not believe me unless you receive the proof of what I announce from the Divine Scriptures". Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395): called the canonical Scriptures the "umpire, rule, and measure" by which every tenet and doctrine must be judged. John Chrysostom (349-407): urged ordinary Christians to lean on a literal reading of the biblical text and to test all claims against Scripture instead of human opinions. Basil the Great (330-379): often appealed to Scripture as the standard of truth, though he also accepted traditional liturgical customs. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258): pushed back on human and local traditions about things like the Eucharist, asking: "Where is that tradition? ... If it is commanded in the Gospels... then let us observe it".
• − opinion#2254 2 likes at the source

  Total bs. Elders, priests, and bishops taught from the scriptures. Relying on tradition is what got churches burning people alive, selling indulgences to get into heaven, and a whole pile of other abuses. The man who translated scripture into English so everyone could read it was burned alive by "the true church". That's horrible. You all can sit here and act like relying on tradition instead of teaching from the Word is this big bad horrible thing, but history PROVES it's the opposite.
• − opinion#2251

  And by the way, we have the whole Old Testament, which was already firmly in place before Christ. The New Testament writings were settled and established by the start of the second century, and copies showed up in every New Testament church.
• − opinion#2252

  Even if the Bible was around back then, there was no printing press, only hand copies, and those were so expensive that no poor person or commoner could own one. Churches taught the Bible, and even they didn't hold the evangelical take on scripture that so many have today. Also, being able to read is a pretty new thing for regular people, most folks throughout history couldn't read. The scriptures are important but the church is just as important, because Christ established the church.
• − opinion#2256

  Yes, you did miss the whole point. When he says he just follows the bible, what he actually means is he only sticks to the new testament part of the bible, and like I said, two different people can read the same Bible and walk away with different interpretations and conclusions.