Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
They had the OT. They had letters from the Apostles. They had the oral teachings of the Apostles as well as those commissioned and taught by the Apostles the words of Jesus.
Just because they did not have a complete NT from Matthew to Revelation does not mean they relied completely on direct revelation from the Spirit
|
What letters did they have available? Yes, they had the oral teachings of the Apostles but a standardized bible (and I'm not talking about the canon approved in the late 4th century) wasn't available to them. Peter didn't read Paul in his early church for Paul didn't write anything until the mid 1st century. Same for Paul in his church. He didn't teach from the writings of Peter for Peter didn't write his epistles until probably the late 1st century. There are good arguments that Peter didn't actually write the book attributed to him.
No doubt there were letters from various christian authors in the mid to latter 1st century, but we don't have a single solitary original snippet of them.
Fact is, we don't have a single solitary original snippet of what anyone wrote. We are demanded to have faith that the scribes which copied the original texts were 100% accurate in their copying. The thing is, subsuquent to the original texts there were copying mistakes on top of copying mistakes. There were passages added that were not in the earliest (don't know about the original) manuscripts, such as
1 John 5:7.
If we have a personal intimate relationship with God, we don't have to worry about what was added...or taken away.
Threaded Mode
