Why We Use The KJV

I agree, it would be difficult for 1st century churches, hey, the 1st century covers from 1 A.D. to 100 A.D., you could argue none of the churches had any of the New Testament scriptures whatsoever!

But how you come up with 200 A.D. is beyond me, it is pure speculation on your part. I imagine that most churches had those earlier writings by Paul, Peter and others in the last years of the 1st century, and that soon after John penned Revelation it was copied and distributed among the existing churches.

I seriously doubt it took 100 years for at least some of the churches to have the complete NT as you speculate.

 

Thanks, that's what I thought. So the church that said,

was wrong.

 

Then you need to go study up on how things worked in those days. There was no mass transit, no rapid transit, no faxes, no internet, no newspapers, no telephones, nothing. It took a lot of time for these letters/books to be spread. They couldn't just run off a few dozen copies and drop it in the mail.

 

Fact is they did.

 

1. "Represents the whole" rarely means "every single one attended". Not every single one need attend if the ones who did are composed of a representative sample. There was no significant portion of orthodox Christianity which was not represented at Nicea. Unlike Trent where an extremely significant minority were totally unrepresented. The two aren't comparable.

2. Please do dumb it down for me.

 

And folks weren't cavemen either. Have you ever seen maps of Paul's missionary trips? According to Christian History magazine, he travelled over 14,000 miles.

Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Here is an example of Paul commanding the Colossians to take this epistle to the Laodiceans. It is safe to assume this was a common practice. It is probable many precise copies were made and distributed among the churches as quickly as possible.

So yes, travel was difficult back then, but men were able to travel many thousands of miles just as they are today.

 

Very likely. But now I am motivated to research more

 

Actually, Revelation (and some other canonical books like 2 Peter, for example) remained OUT of many gatherings of Greek scriptures for decades. It only takes one missing book to make a collection "incomplete".

You may doubt and you may imagine, but this a subject I have read extensively. Again, I think you underestimate the affects of persecution during the first few centuries; in fact, many scriptures were destroyed during this period (and perhaps to somewhat protect canonical books from confiscation they may have been intentionally kept separated for better concealment). Cost and literacy were also factors.

 

And where are your precise copies of that Laodicean epistle today?

 

That is a good question, and you are not the first to voice it. I would answer that Paul is not necessarily saying there is a Book of the Laodiceans for want of a name, but only telling them to read an epistle they received "from" Laodicea.

Matthew Henry commented this:

If you ever wonder why I quote from Matthew Henry, it is because it is the only commentary I have ever owned, I received as a gift many years ago. I don't know what happened to it, I haven't seen it in over 20 years. But I am familiar with his writings and probably consult it more than any other.

I agree with Henry, if this epistle were canon it would not have been lost, as I believe God's promise to preserve scripture. Henry also notes that some scholars believe this was the book of Ephesians.

That is the best answer I can give.

 

Oh, I am sure that some churches did not have all the NT books for some time.

But I disagree that it would have taken a hundred years or more for all the books to get around to the churches. Yes, travel and communication were much slower back then, but they did an amazing job of getting around quickly. They had couriers, they had ships.

But you know what, this is all speculation on your part and mine. There is no way to go back in time and know exactly which churches had which texts. And I am sure it might have changed at times, one church may have loaned a text to another for a period of time.

So, your arguments are just as speculative as mine. You do not have any proof of your assertions any better than I do.

 

I can't find any suggestion that Tertullian's followers weren't represented at Nicea. In fact, many attribute one of the main ideas decided at Nicea to have been first promulgated by Tertullian - the doctrine of the Trinity. Maybe you can refer me to a source which suggest he was excluded?

Yes to Novatian's followers.

Montanus' teachings were condemned by the bishops of Asia Minor early on. Thus he doesn't represent orthodox Christianity. That his teachings stuck around for a while doesn't change this. It would have been strange for his followers to be represented at any council considering they had already been condemned. Besides, his own failed prophecies would have made his teachings invalid.

So, so far, it doesn't appear that these represent counter-examples to my claim about the council. Any other examples?

 

Well, in light of historical facts that is an extraordinarily safe statement.

I don't know who you think you are disagreeing with, since I never said that. The issue under discussion was essentially: When did complete canonical NT codices come into existence? There is NO evidence that I know of that could reasonably tend to support any complete NT before 200AD. There are many facts that would indicate that complete NT codices not exist until much later (possibly mid-4th century).

 

He is probably disagreeing with me, since I made the statement that:

None of them (First Century churches) possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures.

 

As I have pointed out several times before,Matthew Henry completed Acts and died. Other men did the remaining commentaries for the rest of the New Testament. Yet the whole thing --OT and NT is called Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Bible.

 

It's nice to know that people not only claim to know what was in the original copies of scripture though they have never seen them, but also claim to know that the NT churches didn't have the complete NT in the first century.