Did the original church have official endorsed writings?

Sadly, the answer by most preachers is “no”. They will recount that “canon of scripture” was established much later. However, there was an early document that received endorsement, but often does not get the recognition it deserves. The history of this document exists today in your own bible for anyone who cares to look.

The Council at Jerusalem

A meeting took place between Paul and the Jerusalem church in approximately 50 A.D. It is memoralized in the book of Acts 15:1-35. It is called by most the “council at Jerusalem”.

Things to realize about the council:

• There was disagreement between two groups:
  • The believers from Judea (Acts 15:1) that said salvation required circumcision.
  • Paul + Silas who “sharply dispuated” that NO, it did not. (Acts 15:2)
• The “apostles and elders” were accepted by both parties the valid authority to settle the dispute. (Acts 15:2)
• According to Acts 15:5, the Judean believers included a “sect of the pharisees” meaning they were very devout Jews.
• This dispute was the primary purpose of the meeting (Acts 15:6).

It was decided in Acts 15:19 not to require non-Jewish believers in Jesus to be circumcized. However, four things are required of them in Acts 15:20.

• Don’t eat food sacrificed to idols.
• No sexual immorality.
• No eating animals that are strangled.
• No eating blood.

A delegation was chosen (Acts 15:22) and an official letter was drafted (Acts 15:23-29) This was the first official document of the Jerusalem church. Presuming the account in Acts to be accurate, there is no question of whether it was endorsed or not.

• There is no record of any dispute of the resolution of the matter.
• The leader that declared the resolution was James, the brother of Jesus. There’s arguably nobody that knew Jesus better than his own brother.
• Also present was Peter who was the early leader of the Jerusalem church and close confidante of Jesus.
• Paul and Barnabas willingly accepted the letter which was presumably a “win” for them since no circumcision was required of believing Gentiles.

During the next 17 years (50 A.D. - 57 A.D.)

Paul writes most of his letters to the churches and installs them as doctrinal. The approximate timeline is fairly well agreed upon. At very least, this includes the following books:

• Galatians (50 A.D.)
• 1st Thessalonians (51 A.D.)
• 2nd Thessalonians (52 A.D.)
• 1st Corinthians (56 A.D.)
• 2nd Corinthians (57 A.D. )
• Romans (57 A.D.)

Significant doctrines that were developed in those years evidenced in the letters included,

• Doctrine of universal human depravity. (Romans 3)
• Original sin (Romans 5:12)
• The law was designed to make sin abound to magnify grace. (Romans 5:20)
• Salvation by verbal confession. (Romans 10:9)
• Circumcision in some cases prohobited salvation. (Galatians 5:2)
• Relationship between Gentiles and Jews. (Romans 9-11)
• Follow Paul as he follows Jesus and shun those who question Paul. (2 Thessalonians 3:9-14)
• Torah law was only a temporary tool to bring people to Jesus that believers are “no longer under”. (Gal 3:24-25)
• Eating meat sacrificed to idols (prohibited in Acts 15:20) is okay if a “weaker brother” doesn’t know about it. (1 Corinthians 8:7-9)
• Marriage is discouraged but not prohibited. (1 Corinthians 7:7-9)
• All things are lawful to believers but may not be expedient. (1 Corinthians 10:23)
• An allegory based on placing Hagar instead of Elizabeth at Sinai to receive the covenant, a reversal of what really happened. (Galatians 4:24-25)
• The purpose of Sinai was to place people in bondage (Galatians 4:25) in spite of God saying the event took them “out of bondage” (Exodus 20:2)
• Certain commandments were not to be followed literally, but metaphorically. (1 Corinthians 9:9-10)

All of those doctrines by 325 A.D. were mainstream Christian doctrine. But how were they received in the first century? How were they received by those that saw Moses and Elijah visit Jesus on the mountain? To the man Jesus entrusted with the care of his own mother? To Peter, who’s shadow was said to have provoked healing by a miracle. What did they think of it?

Return of Paul to Jerusalem

Upon Paul’s return to Jerusalem, the city was filled with thousands as James pointed out to Paul.
This should come as no surprise given that there were 3,000 added to the church the first year, and that was now over 20 years ago.
These thousands had two characteristics in common as described by James in Acts 21:20:

1. Believed in Jesus
2. Zealous for the law.

These are interestingly the same two traits described by the faithful in Revelation 12:17 and the “saints” in Revelation 14:12.
It’s hard to imagine that James was presenting this as a negative trait.

Hey Everybody, check out this “inspired Word of God” Paul wrote

So what would be the reaction of these thousands to Paul? Would the topic of *official writings" even come up? If it did, what are the possible reactions?

To Paul’s dismay, his writings were declined. How do we know the topic was raised? Though the account only gives us the conclusion of the conversation, we hear a rather terse response from James. In Acts 21:25, James re-affirms his support for the original writings, and only the original writings.

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

Just think of the magnitude of this. Six out of 27 books of the bible were available to be “canonized” or whatever you want to call it, and they were politely declined. That represents 22% of the books in the “New Testament” today. Possible reasons:

1. James was a misguided idiot.
2. James had good reason for rejecting it and was being a responbile leader.

Could it be James expressed at least a part of his reason in his epistle later?

From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (James 3:10-12)

Who was Jame referring to? Could it be the same person that said this?

“Well, it couldn’t be Paul because that’s just not possible. Paul never did that.”

Oh really?

Paul, an Apostle…Grace be to you and peace….if if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Gal 1:1-8)

“Grace to you…let him be under God’s curse!!” Say what you will, that text contains blessings and curses from the same mouth.

As for Paul’s doctrine, is there evidence James had a problem with it? Yes there is. look at his so-called “faith plus nothing” doctrines expressed in Romans 3:27-28 and Galatians 2:16. We know James had a problem with that. How do we know? Because he says it’s reversed in James 2:14-26. That’s how we know.

The church Jesus established in Jerusalem, when offered the writings and doctrine of Paul, DECLINED THEM and disputed them

Why on earth would you accept text as divine that was rejected by those that knew Jesus best? Why would you embrace teachings that the brother of Jesus outright rejected?

• Religion