How the very early manuscripts were safeguarded from error

[MisterE]

The word "originals" below is a controversial translation of the Greek word behind the word "authentic." If it doesn't mean the originals, it would at least mean careful copies of the originals.

The originals (or “careful copies of the Apostles originals” ) were appealed to if there was doubt in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the text of the NT:

Here is a quote from the Church Father Tertullian, who lived from 160 to 220.

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still preeminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”

Here Tertullian advises believers that if they had any questions about the text, to go to the churches that have the authentic writings of the Apostles. So this is about AD 200. Note that the originals or careful copies were still very much being checked. It also shows how Satan and his cohorts could not reek havoc on the text. If some unbelievers tried to destroy the deity of Christ by changing the text, the originals or careful copies were available to demonstrate that such attempts were not going to be successful. These authentic writings were around for at least 150 years. While hundreds of copies were being made, the authentic writings could be consulted to make sure the copies were accurate.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The word "originals" below is a controversial translation of the Greek word behind the word "authentic." If it doesn't mean the originals, it would at least mean careful copies of the originals.

The originals (or “careful copies of the Apostles originals” ) were appealed to if there was doubt in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the text of the NT:

Here is a quote from the Church Father Tertullian, who lived from 160 to 220.

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still preeminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”

Here Tertullian advises believers that if they had any questions about the text, to go to the churches that have the authentic writings of the Apostles. So this is about AD 200. Note that the originals or careful copies were still very much being checked. It also shows how Satan and his cohorts could not reek havoc on the text. If some unbelievers tried to destroy the deity of Christ by changing the text, the originals or careful copies were available to demonstrate that such attempts were not going to be successful. These authentic writings were around for at least 150 years. While hundreds of copies were being made, the authentic writings could be consulted to make sure the copies were accurate.

Turtullian should have known that the apostles had no "thrones".
That is enough to make me doubt his connection to God.

 

[WIP]

The word "originals" below is a controversial translation of the Greek word behind the word "authentic." If it doesn't mean the originals, it would at least mean careful copies of the originals.

The originals (or “careful copies of the Apostles originals” ) were appealed to if there was doubt in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the text of the NT:

Here is a quote from the Church Father Tertullian, who lived from 160 to 220.

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still preeminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”

Here Tertullian advises believers that if they had any questions about the text, to go to the churches that have the authentic writings of the Apostles. So this is about AD 200. Note that the originals or careful copies were still very much being checked. It also shows how Satan and his cohorts could not reek havoc on the text. If some unbelievers tried to destroy the deity of Christ by changing the text, the originals or careful copies were available to demonstrate that such attempts were not going to be successful. These authentic writings were around for at least 150 years. While hundreds of copies were being made, the authentic writings could be consulted to make sure the copies were accurate.

To my knowledge the original writings from the authors of the books of the Holy Bible do not exist today. Everything we have are copies of those originals.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

P52 is the earliest and most famous fragment...

Dated around 100-150 AD.

More info can be found here...

 

[MisterE]

To my knowledge the original writings from the authors of the books of the Holy Bible do not exist today. Everything we have are copies of those originals.

You are exactly right!

 

[MisterE]

P52 is the earliest and most famous fragment...

Dated around 100-150 AD.

More info can be found here...

I asked a Ph.D. professor from Cambridge University in England if this fragment "could be" part of the Original Autograph. He said it very well could be.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

The word "originals" below is a controversial translation of the Greek word behind the word "authentic." If it doesn't mean the originals, it would at least mean careful copies of the originals.

The originals (or “careful copies of the Apostles originals” ) were appealed to if there was doubt in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the text of the NT:

Here is a quote from the Church Father Tertullian, who lived from 160 to 220.

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still preeminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”

Here Tertullian advises believers that if they had any questions about the text, to go to the churches that have the authentic writings of the Apostles. So this is about AD 200. Note that the originals or careful copies were still very much being checked. It also shows how Satan and his cohorts could not reek havoc on the text. If some unbelievers tried to destroy the deity of Christ by changing the text, the originals or careful copies were available to demonstrate that such attempts were not going to be successful. These authentic writings were around for at least 150 years. While hundreds of copies were being made, the authentic writings could be consulted to make sure the copies were accurate.

A similar historical event occurred in 144 with Marcion. Marcion was a wealthy merchant from Sinope. He went to Rome and gave the Church there a bunch of money. He became prominent there for a short time; but then he tried to pass off his own redacted version of Apostolic Scripture. The Bishop and Priests of Rome rejected his redacted version and also his newly revealed theology and excommunicated him; also returning his money.
The Church (all of the local churches in the various cities of the empire) which had Apostolic Documents, passed them down from Bishop to Bishop, Priest to Priest and that is how they knew what was authentic and what was not.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Turtullian should have known that the apostles had no "thrones".
That is enough to make me doubt his connection to God.

In the early Church, the seat of the Bishop in any local Church was a "throne". Still is in the Orthodox Church

 

[Hopeful 2]

In the early Church, the seat of the Bishop in any local Church was a "throne". Still is in the Orthodox Church

It may have been called that in the sects that came out of early Christianity.
But not the original church by Christ Jesus (Eph 3:21)

 

[Little Owl]

God said he would supernaturally protect his words to the world. He did not say he would protect those making copies of it.

Google images of any Bible book. Genesis,Luke,etc...

Worth the read, IMO.

How Reliable Are the Ancient Biblical Manuscripts in Our Possession? - Eternal Perspective Ministries

We have so many more—and better-quality biblical manuscripts—than any other document from ancient history.

www.epm.org

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

It may have been called that in the sects that came out of early Christianity.
But not the original church by Christ Jesus (Eph 3:21)

I fail to see where Ephesians 3:21 forbids a bishop from having a throne in a local parish.
Perhaps you can elaborate.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I fail to see where Ephesians 3:21 forbids a bishop from having a throne in a local parish.

Of course not, as that wasn't the implication.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

Sure.
Mounting a throne is a trait of men walking in and after the "flesh", instead of walking in and after the Spirit.
A true bishop would rather work alongside his "flock" than rule over them.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Of course not, as that wasn't the implication.

Sure.
Mounting a throne is a trait of men walking in and after the "flesh", instead of walking in and after the Spirit.
A true bishop would rather work alongside his "flock" than rule over them.

Sounds like opinion to me, rather than an instruction of the Apostles. Perhaps you are simply reading something into it that is not there.
Christ sits on a throne. The Apostles will sit on thrones. Is that indicative of fleshly rule?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Sounds like opinion to me, rather than an instruction of the Apostles.

Where are the apostles told they must sit on anything deemed a throne on earth ?
Where are bishops told they must sit over their brothers ?

Perhaps you are simply reading something into it that is not there.
Christ sits on a throne. The Apostles will sit on thrones. Is that indicative of fleshly rule?

The apostles will eventually sit on thrones to judge the Israelites.
That doesn't make it OK for present day bishops to lord themselves over their brothers.
Thrones reek of tiered separation: and not of unity.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Where are the apostles told they must sit on anything deemed a throne on earth ?
Where are bishops told they must sit over their brothers ?

The apostles will eventually sit on thrones to judge the Israelites.
That doesn't make it OK for present day bishops to lord themselves over their brothers.
Thrones reek of tiered separation: and not of unity.

Why do the Apostles have to be told to sit on thrones? And how is authority in the Church "lording" it over one's brothers?
The Apostles were given AUTHORITY over the Body of Christ and they passed that mantle on to worthy successors. Authority in the Holy Church is SERVITUDE to the Body. It is not tyrannical, earthly rule? The thrones represent the authority of the Bishop. He is not a tyrant.
Nor is the Church a democracy. It is a MONARCHY and there is an order of spiritual authority therein. God is not an author of confusion and chaos.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Why do the Apostles have to be told to sit on thrones?

They aren't told that.

And how is authority in the Church "lording" it over one's brothers?

The church won't lift up any man to preeminence.
Only the world's organizations would do such a thing.

The Apostles were given AUTHORITY over the Body of Christ and they passed that mantle on to worthy successors. Authority in the Holy Church is SERVITUDE to the Body. It is not tyrannical, earthly rule? The thrones represent the authority of the Bishop. He is not a tyrant.
Nor is the Church a democracy. It is a MONARCHY and there is an order of spiritual authority therein. God is not an author of confusion and chaos.

The only Ones I bow to, or kiss His ring, are God and His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

They aren't told that.

The church won't lift up any man to preeminence.
Only the world's organizations would do such a thing.

The only Ones I bow to, or kiss His ring, are God and His Son Jesus Christ.

You said:
The church won't lift up any man to preeminence.
Only the world's organizations would do such a thing.

My response:
You avoided my question. Here it is again:
"How is authority in the Church "lording" it over one's brothers"?

You said:
The only Ones I bow to, or kiss His ring, are God and His Son Jesus Christ.

My response:
Your humility is very profound!

 

[Hopeful 2]

You said:
The church won't lift up any man to preeminence.
Only the world's organizations would do such a thing.

My response:
You avoided my question. Here it is again:
"How is authority in the Church "lording" it over one's brothers"?

There is no authority but God's.
If a man attempts to usurp that "lordship", he will perish.

You said:
The only Ones I bow to, or kiss His ring, are God and His Son Jesus Christ.
My response:
Your humility is very profound!

Whose ring are you kissing ?

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

There is no authority but God's.
If a man attempts to usurp that "lordship", he will perish.

Whose ring are you kissing ?

You said:
There is no authority but God's.
If a man attempts to usurp that "lordship", he will perish.

My response:
God is the One Who set up the authoritative structure of the Church. Being that you refuse to accept His Mandates it looks like YOU are the one usurping lordship.
You asked me whose ring I was kissing. I am Orthodox, not Catholic. We do kiss the Holy Icons and we kiss the Holy Cross when presented to us. As I was Baptized into a Romanian Parish there is a lot of cheek "kissing" (what we actually do is press our cheeks together. It is a sign of affection) as well between members of the Church. I guess we are just all gonna perish over that.

 

[Hopeful 2]

You said:
There is no authority but God's.
If a man attempts to usurp that "lordship", he will perish.

My response:
God is the One Who set up the authoritative structure of the Church. Being that you refuse to accept His Mandates it looks like YOU are the one usurping lordship.

I accept them wholeheartedly.
But elevating men to "throne" status is not of God.

You asked me whose ring I was kissing. I am Orthodox, not Catholic. We do kiss the Holy Icons and we kiss the Holy Cross when presented to us.

That is idolatry.

As I was Baptized into a Romanian Parish there is a lot of cheek "kissing" (what we actually do is press our cheeks together. It is a sign of affection) as well between members of the Church. I guess we are just all gonna perish over that.

Where is that written against ?

Here are the qualifications for being a bishop in the Church by Christ Jesus (Eph 3:21)...
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1 Tim 3:2-7)
Do orthadox bishops have families ? Wives ? Kids ?