Posted on 09/02/2014 10:11:49 AM PDT by CorporateStepsister
It has laid largely unstudied in a university library for more than 100 years.
But now a 1,500-year-old papyrus has been identified as one of the world’s earliest surviving Christian charms.
The ‘remarkable’ document contains some of the earliest documented references to The Last Supper and sheds new light on early Christian practices, experts say.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Also Egypt was also were the Copts got their start.
The first Christians had the Hebrew Scriptures, the Apostles teaching them, and the circulating letters and writings of the Apostles. What they didn’t have was everything collected, printed in nice fonts, bound and distributed at a reasonable price.
And yes, they had the Hebrew Scriptures, but they didn’t contain anything in “red ink”, if you get my drift.
“And yes, they had the Hebrew Scriptures, but they didn’t contain anything in “red ink”, if you get my drift.”
Those “black ink” Hebrew writings were enough to lead people to Christ.
Yes, the apostles were given collectively and in the person of St. Peter the authority that what they declare bound on Earth has been bound in Heaven, and what they declare loosed on Earth has been loosed in Heaven. The fact that this authority was exercised to discern what comprises the bible after the apostles had died demonstrates that the authority was handed down to their successors. Yes, we can discern a rational basis for what was included (apostolic authority, orthodoxy, universal acceptance), but that doesn’t negate the fact that this was an act of discernment after the lives of the apostles.
hey dangus,
you’ve got it right.
when a poorly catechized or studied Christian attempts to ‘wing it’ he usually goes for the simple easy answer.
it is much more a commentary on his own faith than on the prayer scroll.
For the Greater Glory of God
and His gift of the Eucharist
I offer this chronology for your review and consideration:
http://www.bswett.com/2012NTChron.html
It begins: “This paper is a result of trying to understand when and where and by whom the books of the New Testament were written. I waded through numerous Internet archives and found that almost everything is controversial, with some scholars denying what others assert, so I decided to do my own research. I have relied on internal and external evidence, but not on modern scholarship, because so many modern scholars seem determined to justify their own preconceptions. For example, some say Matthew and Luke were written after 70 because they do not believe Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 21:5-6), but about 75 Josephus wrote that many people escaped from Jerusalem during a lull in the Roman siege (The Wars of the Jews 2.20.1), and about 325 Eusebius wrote that Christians remembered what Jesus predicted and fled from Jerusalem before it was destroyed (Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3).”
Of course if you need to see the actual, original letters, that is impossible.
Those “black ink” Hebrew writings were enough to lead people to Christ.
hi cuban
although we have been on opposite sides of a couple of discussions in this forum I agree with you wholeheartedly.
their faith was in their ears (heard) and mind (thoughts and prayers) nothing written to guide them just the grace he poured into those earliest souls and hearts.
God bless them all because it is their faith that we have our faith today.
spot on.
For the Greater Glory of God
and our earliest Christian ancestors
>> The titles of the Gospels don’t mean what you think. The Matthew you have in mind didn’t write it. <<
The gospel titles are not part of the gospels themselves. That doesn’t mean that they are wrongly attributed. Even if St. Matthew were not the author, there is no serious doubt that those who attributed it to St. Matthew meant the apostle. There are many strong, valid reasons for assigning the name of St. Matthew the Apostle to the gospel of St. Matthew. Those who did so in the first century were not fools. They knew who wrote it. The arguments against that authorship, have been demonstrated false. Turns out more recent archaeology confirms that 2nd-century Palestinians knew more about 1st-century Hebrews than did 19th-century German and the rest of the Q school know-it-alls, like Raymond Brown. In fact, in light of recent scholarship, I would say it is completely laughable to refer to the Q school and the Jesus Seminar folks; they have been so thoroughly and embarrassingly debunked. There is a plain and simple reason why Mark and Matthew use identical language: Matthew quotes Mark directly. The next most likely reason is that Mark quotes Matthew directly. The completely absurd one is that they are both based on some hypothetical “sayings” gospel completely lost to history.
Thanks for the link at Post # 48.
The writings of Irenaeus and the Didache are much older (late first century and mid 1st century respectively). The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are early third century.
Actually, you are largely correct: The early church’s bishops claimed their authority was granted to them by Christ. What is notable is that their followers accepted this claim, and it was these who built Christianity. You can’t be an orthodox Christian (even with the small “o”), and reject that the bishops and the Bible mutually rely on each other for authority. That is why St. Ignatius, the first bishop of Antioch to succeed the apostles declared that if you want to know the Church, look to the bishops.
Had this not been known from the beginning, the early Christians would have said to the bishops, “so who are you to decide such matters?” And indeed, some did. Look into gnosticism if you will, and decide for yourself if that strikes you as true Christianity. But look into the real beliefs, not just the Dan Brown nonsense. I promise you that you will be horrified by what you find.
It is quite true that Christian doctrinal beliefs vary between denominations. However, Roman Catholics and the vast majority of mainline Christian Protestants agree on the formulation of the New Testament canon. Most doctrinal differences are due to differences in exegesis and hermeneutics (how one interprets) instead of textual differences.
It is Old Testament books where Protestants differ with Roman Catholics resulting in some differences in doctrine and practice.
As far as Luke being an eye witness, my text does not reflect uncertainty in my mind. I was merely pointing out that Luke purports to base his books on what eye witnesses conveyed to him; Luke 1:1-3. He makes it unclear as to whether he might have personal observations to add to his accounts.
There’s actually far less division on texts among surviving sects than you might believe reading the likes of Nat Geo.
The big difference is the acceptance among the Catholics and Orthodox of seven Old-Testament books, and portions of three others. Apart from that:
Catholics and Orthodox don’t really disagree on the Letter of Jeremiah; Catholics merely append it to the book of Baruch.
Nor do they disagree on what they call “apocrypha.” In fact, no Christian sect holds them to be canonical. (Protestants call the seven disputed books, “apocrypha,” but Orthodox and Catholics do not.)
The Prayer of Manasseh is not a book, just a mere fifteen verses.
3 Esdras (also called 1 Esdras and Greek Esther) is merely a recension of what is otherwise traditionally but no longer called 1 Esdras by Catholics, (Ezra) and 2 Esdras (Nehemiah). When the Council of Trent asserted which books must be defended as origins of doctrine, it was unlisted not because it was refuted, but because it contained almost no unique content. Ancient churches merely used 3 Esdras or 1 and 2 Esdras.
4 Esdras (also called 2 Esdras) is the source of certain liturgical prayers Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but is rarely asserted as canonical. However, to be fair, the inclusion in liturgical prayers was a major determinant in being called biblical by several ancient canons. So you could sort of say it was considered canonically biblical by that logic, even if it wasn’t included in many published bibles.
The most significant “disagreement” is 3 Maccabees, which is considered part of the “Anagignoskomena” by most Orthodox Churches, but not part of the “deuterocanonicals” by Catholics.
4 Maccabees exists only in the Georgia bible.
What’s more fascinating is the books which are NOT included in the Old Testament, but which the New Testament seems to cite as biblical: the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch (which is in the bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church).
Great stuff . . . all of it.
http://www.bswett.com/2012NTChron.html
Thanks! I'm at work right now and can't spend a lot of time on this, but I will try to remember to look at it later.
I was initially concerned when you said that you had dismissed modern scholarship since there was quite a movement in the 1900's to attribute the New Testament books to 2nd and 3rd century writers. I see that you have not gone that route. Good!
The first thing I notice is a 2 year ministry of Jesus. Most hold to a 3 year ministry based on trying to count the passover trips to Jerusalem. I am fond of Johnston Cheney's work (published by the Baptists): "The Life of Christ in Stereo". Cheney had started with the original Greek text to build a harmony. He used every text discarding only those which he deemed as obvious duplicates. The resulting Greek was subsequently translated into English. He says that he could only make things "fit" by resorting to a 4 year ministry. I found this to be a compelling argument in order for me to leave the subject in abeyance.
Your date for Romans matches Walt Russell's (Biola University) conjecture that Romans was written by Paul just after the Jews, which had been ejected from Rome by Claudius, were allowed to return to Rome by Nero at the behest of his wife. That resulted in a 56 - 57 date.
Russell explains this position in his hermeneutics class which is provided free online from Biola. He contends that understanding the movement of the Jews and Christian Jews out of and into Rome is necessary to understand Romans 7 which is addressed by Paul to "those of you who understand the law"; i.e., Christian Jews as opposed to the Gentile Christians who had been left behind when Claudius threw the Jews out. His entire series of classes is time well spent!
The notion that Jesus made three trips to Jerusalem is from John depicting Jesus in Jerusalem, away, in, away, and in again. Passages from St. John relating to the Last Supper are clearly not chronological: Judas is there, gone, back again, and then leaves. So it’s plausible that these three passages do not represent three separate annual trips, especially since the first trip parallels an event described by the other three gospels as taking place immediately before Jesus’ death (the clearing of the Temple). For some reason, literalists insist that if you don’t take the Gospel of John as chronological, you’re treating it as fictitious, and I don’t regard the point worthy of faction or scandal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.