“There’s no Bible in the Bible, either.”
You miss that “Scriptures” are in the Scriptures.
“When Paul and Barnabas became involved in a dispute about circumsion with some folk from Judea, they couldn’t say ...”what does it say in the Bible?” There was no New Testament. It didn’t exist.”
And you have that excuse today???
“Instead, Paul and Barnabas returned to Jerusalem and consulted with the “apostles and ancients.”
Ah, yes. They were alive.
“Imagine that.....a church with no New Testament! I wonder what they used for preaching?”
Hebrew Scriptures that were able to make wise to salvation.
“So just remember.....when your preacher stands up and asks you to turn to a particular passage in Romans, just rmember that’s not Biblical because that’s not how Paul and Barnabas preached.”
Actually, the Scriptures WERE read aloud in gatherings in cities.
You have work to do.
An "excuse"??
The event described in Acts clearly indicates how disputes, and questions of dogma were settled in the early Church; not by reference to a book. That is your point, isn't it? We should conform to how things were done in the early Church, right?
There was no book. Paul and Barnabas conferred with the Apostles.
This also clearly indicates that before the book, there already was the Church. That is, the Church gave us the Scriptures and not vice versa.
That is why Paul and Barnabas had no need of a book when it came to resolving the dispute over circumcision. They consulted the "apostles and ancients". Likewise, evangelists had no need of a book. They were sent by the Apostles in the name of Jesus.
This is precisely the model used by the Catholic Church.