Bible Only is dumb

Eponymous Flower ^ | September 9, 2023 | Stop Voris

[ebb tide]

Bible Only is dumb

ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY

ONE

Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).

.

COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.

.

TWO

How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.

.

COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

.

THREE

Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.

.

Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.

Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.

COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.

.

FOUR

Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?

.

FIVE

Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.

COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

.

SIX

What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.

.

2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

.

SEVEN

Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.

.

COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.

.

EIGHT

When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.

.

COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

.

NINE

Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.

.

COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.

.

TEN

What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings.

.

COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

.

ELEVEN

Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.

If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.

.

COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.

.

TWELVE

Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.

.

COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?

.

THIRTEEN

Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A. D.? No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.

.

COMMENT: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory; but before 400 A. D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.

.

FOURTEEN

Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.

.

COMMENT: To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.

.

FIFTEEN

Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented.

.

COMMENT: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so.

.

SIXTEEN

Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the "Bible-only theory"? St. Paul seems to answer the above when he said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galations 1-8 - Protestant version ).

.

COMMENT: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least 300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700).

.

SEVENTEEN

Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the "Bible-only" theory and its personal interpretation? Just what St. Paul foretold when he said: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition). According to the World Christian Encyclopedia and other sources, there are 73 different organizations of Methodists, 55 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 17 organizations of Mennonites, 128 of Lutherans and thousands of other denominations.

.

COMMENT: The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.

.

EIGHTEEN

In Christ's system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

.

COMMENT: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of Christ's true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.

.

NINETEEN

Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.

.

2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

COMMENT: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the "Bible-only" theory be defended.

.

TWENTY

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of; God's law and God's word.

.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mal. 2-7: For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

COMMENT: Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision.

.

TWENTY-ONE

What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.

.

COMMENT: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons-but not otherwise.

.

TWENTY-TWO

Why are there so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.

.

COMMENT: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of religious faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.

.

TWENTY-THREE

Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.

.

COMMENT: Catholics love, venerate, use the Bible; but they also know that the Bible alone is not Christ's system but only a precious book, a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to "preach the Gospel to every living creature" and to keep on preaching it "to the end of time."

.

TWENTY-FOUR

Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed by John Gutenberg. It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence prevailed, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534. Of these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luther's "discovery" of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.

.

COMMENT: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.

.

TWENTY-FIVE

During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and Tyndale.

.

COMMENT: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.

.

ORIGIN OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the true Church began with Christ over 1900 years ago, not with men or women 15 to 19 centuries later. It was founded when Our Lord spoke the following and other similar words:

.

Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

COMMENT: History proves that the First Protestant Church was the Lutheran, founded in 1517 by the ex-priest Martin Luther; all other of the some 33,800 sects have been created since then.

.

AUTHORITY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.

.

Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Matt 18-17: And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-19: And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

COMMENT: The apostles repeatedly claimed this authority: Gal. 1-8; John 1-10; Acts 15, 23 and 28. Hence the laws or precepts of the true Church are founded upon the same authority as the commandments of God. For the Church of Christ has authority to act in his Name.

[daniel1212]

Been using this extension which enables pop-up viewing of most bible references. For Firefox and Chrome. As usual with most every extension, you get the scary "can read" or access data on websites," but and thus read what this means.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thanks!

[wita]

Ya gonna believe James or Jesus?

Ya can’t do both.

...and you believe that ya can’t do both? Seems to me James was present at the transfiguration, which might give you a clue.

Your position is contrary to logic, reason, truth, common sense, much less The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Ya can’t do both.

If you believe in the ONE He sent, you will believe also in the book of James.

Then there is this: Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

[wita]

Do you believe in “by faith and by works”?

A question that came immediately to mind.

I’ll bet I know the answer, but thanks for asking.

[metmom]

Perhaps the Bible is incomplete (if it is) because the Lord expects the Holy Spirit indwelling believers to reveal its meaning and truth.

The Bible is NOT *incomplete* because it does not contain all knowledge and a detailed record of everything Jesus said or did.

But it DOES contain everything we need to be fully equipped and complete for the work God has for us to do.

God put in all that was necessary, not everything some person decides needed to be added to make it *complete*.

[metmom]

God put in all that HE knew we needed to be complete and mature in Christ.

[RoosterRedux]

Whether the Bible is incomplete or not is NOT my point.

My point is that the indwelling Holy Spirit reveals the Truth of the Bible to the believer.

[metmom]

That is most certainly true.

The most complete spiritual work in the world will make no sense to someone who is dead spiritually.

[Big Red Badger]

I’ll check it out...
Smart phones——meh
Thanks !

[daniel1212]

I had some excellent writing composition courses in college. My professors drilled into me the fact that no one wants to read long rambling essays. They used to say, "Write like Hemingway...no extra words, no rambling paragraphs, be extremely economical, try to write without using adjectives and adverbs." They called wordiness an exercise in vanity.

Well, there is wordiness and there is comprehensiveness, esp. in apologetics, in which case not only are there arguments to be countered but anticipated responses to the later as well. Although, in dealing with persistent posters of RC propaganda, this is usually that of dealing with past iterations of refuted RC polemics, and which may warrant posting from past ignored refutations in response.

And since encyclicals can be quite long (John XXIII's final encyclical, Pacem in terris, is over 15,000 words), then they have their papal prolixity.

[daniel1212]

I spend all day reading. Like most people, I have to cut to the bottom line pretty quickly in the material I digest or I wouldn't be able to cover much ground.

I myself usually skim an article quickly for the meat, esp. in posting an article here so as to provide the reader with it. Those who carelessly just post the leading content, sometimes with repetition extraneous content, are not being mindful and considerate of those who skim the article page for content worth reading.

[RoosterRedux]

Good points. But what is comprehensiveness to the writer is often wordiness to the reader.

If you are one of those folks who reads footlong comments (or longer), my hat's off to you.

[RoosterRedux]

Amen.

When I post a thread at FR, I usually include just the most important points from an article.

Doing so might be a violation of the "Fair Use Laws" but I haven't had any complaints yet.

[daniel1212]

Amen. When I post a thread at FR, I usually include just the most important points from an article. Doing so might be a violation of the "Fair Use Laws" but I haven't had any complaints yet.

I often use https://wordcounter.net/ to compile snippets up to the normally allowed 300 words.

[daniel1212]

Good points. But what is comprehensiveness to the writer is often wordiness to the reader. If you are one of those folks who reads footlong comments (or longer), my hat's off to you.

No, aside from replies to me, I usually skim for the meat.

[Elsie]

When you’re paid by the word; and have a word processor, you just gave yourself a raise!

[Elsie]

The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

Now; as Paul Harvey would state: the REST of the story...

The New Testament itself teaches that it DOES contain enough to get any person to heaven that follows the narrow path.

John 20:30-31

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.

[Elsie]

Seems to me James was present at the transfiguration, which might give you a clue.

Was James present when Jesus made His reply in John 6:29?

Did Jesus mention that His reply was not quite everything that one MUST do; and that He'd fill in the blanks when Joe Smith moved to Missouri?

[RoosterRedux]

There are other requirements and prohibitions to the Fair Use Laws (other than just a 300-word-ish excerpt)...like not taking the heart out of an article when borrowing freely from it.

The entire purpose of the Fair Use laws is to permit the use of otherwise copyrighted material to create something "new." Not to do what I do--which is to reduce an article to a handful of statements and then republish them on FR.

I hate to admit it, but I violate the spirit of the Fair Use law.

I do this out of a fondness for FR and Freepers.

[Cronos]

1. "Our Lord Himself never wrote..."

Well, ebb is wrong -- The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. As you point out the Holy Spirit is God and Jesus is God.

I would note that ebb goes on to say that nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. which is true.

1b " If reading the Bible were a necessary means "

You quote Luke 24 - which is about Jesus expounding the scriptures to the Apostles - i.e. explaining to them. Nothing that "reading" the scriptures was a necessary means of salvation -- and similarly Luke 24:44-45 is explaining to the Apostles why Jesus came and not a warlord Meschiach

Similarly John 20 does NOT in any way state that "reading is a necessary means of salvation" - nor could that be construed by reading the text

2. "How many of the Apostles actually wrote..."

well, I agree with you - it isn't an argument for or against sola scriptura. Thaddeus and Bartholomew went to preach to the Jews and gentiles in Iraq and Iran while Thomas went to preach and convert Jews and gentiles in southern India

The fact that they didn't write anything could just mean that they didn't have anything to add i.e. were not inspired to expound on what was taught to them by Jesus

2.b. "If the Bible privately.."

ebb is correct on this - Thaddeus and Bartholomew and Thomas at the most would have had the Jewish scriptures to rely upon when they visited the Jews in Iraq, Iran and India. But they also converted gentiles there.

They highly likely - and in Thomas' case most definitely - did not rely on Pauline epistles to create the foundations of the Assyrian or the Marthomite churches

You quote Acts 17:2 -- but that was Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees

Then you falsely say "sola ecclesia" - which is not what the Church nor ebb has said. The Church does not say "sola ecclesia" -- you did that

Next, you make a completely spurious - meaning false statement of "the word of God consists of and means what Rome says, according to her interpretation" -- false - this was as per councils, not "Rome"

The only ones claiming that the Bible says only what they themselves say tend to be sola scriptura folks

3. "Jesus founded a Church"

"an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD

The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews

Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD -- The Mishnah, compiled at the end of the 2nd century CE, describes a debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular over whether or not they render the hands ritually impure. Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to a debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Megillat Ta'anit, in a discussion of days when fasting is prohibited but that are not noted in the Bible, mentions the holiday of Purim. Based on these, and a few similar references, Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew) which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70–90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century

Neusner argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in 2nd-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine, pp. 128–45, and Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism, pp. 1–22.

Scripture i.e. the Prophets and the Torah and to some extent the other writings, was the foundation for the Church's dogmatic claim, but it was not claimed as the SOLE method for dissemination of grace and/or salvation

Next, your claim that "Truth is founded in scripture" contradicts Paul. The Old Testament books provided verification for the claims of Jesus as the anointed one

"Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture" - scripture was the means for validating, not for dissemination of salvation as is abundantly clear in the entire book of Acts of the Apostles

Argument 4 "Difference"

I don't get ebb or your points -- there is no one "Protestant Bible" in any case as some denominations have their own interpretations

comment "How would it have been possiblef or 2nd century christians"

ebb is correct that there was NO private interpretation of the teachings of Christ - except by heretics like Marcion etc.

2nd century Christians were taught by the spoken word - the bishops were very active in going around trying to ensure that only the exact teachings of Jesus were repeated. There were few written texts until Mark's writing in 50 AD