Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Question for Protestants in this group
Bryn wrote: "Does anyone else on here have any comments, as to what Luke and I have been posting? I'd love to hear your reactions to all this."I browse, but confess no expertise and not as much interest in the events and stabilizing beliefs after the first century. There was no "canon" of Christian scriptures in the first century, because every writer felt themselves on the edge of a new age; that we'd still be looking forward to Jesus' return 2,000 years later, and thus have need of choosing a christian canon at all, would be unthinkable.
in response to David, Scholars contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament Texts in "Against Heresies."
Matthew (Book 3, Chapter 16) Mark (Book 3, Chapter 10) Luke (Book 3, Chapter 14) John (Book 3, Chapter 11) Acts of the Apostles (Book 3, Chapter 14) Romans (Book 3, Chapter 16) 1 Corinthians (Book 1, Chapter 3) 2 Corinthians (Book 3, Chapter 7) Galatians (Book 3, Chapter 22) Ephesians (Book 5, Chapter 2) Philippians (Book 4, Chapter 18) Colossians (Book 1, Chapter 3) 1 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 6) 2 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 25) 1 Timothy (Book 1, Preface) 2 Timothy (Book 3, Chapter 14) Titus (Book 3, Chapter 3) 1 Peter (Book 4, Chapter 9) 1 John (Book 3, Chapter 16) 2 John (Book 1, Chapter 16) Revelation to John (Book 4, Chapter 20)
He may refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not cite Philemon, 3 John or Jude.
that's not bad considering he was 200 years before carthage. But it was far more than just the gospels. so before you charge me with an over statement check out the facts.
Also if you study the letters of Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Athenasius .... ect. these guys all had a very intimate knowledge of the NT documents and all of them pre-dated carthage. NT scholar Bruce Metzer has gone on record saying that we could literally recreate the NT from the quotes and commentaries of the early church fathers.
I'm not saying that I haven't been prone to a protestant bias during this discussion. were all gonna defend from our own theological stance,, but I don't appreciate being misrepresented by somebody who has clearly not done his homework.
In Matthew 12 Messiah institutes a policy of silence he goes from proclamation of his messiaship to forbidding the disciples to proclaim him so. He no longer heals everyone that comes to him (now only individuals based on personal faith) and he institutes the parabolic method of teaching.
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Matthew 13:10, 11 KJV)
Why is this?
If you can answer my question, I can answer yours.
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Matthew 13:10, 11 KJV)
Why is this?
If you can answer my question, I can answer yours.
so the question is, why did Jesus teach in parables;?or why did his ministry turn so selective all of a sudden?
After Mt 12 Jesus dramatically changes. Before he's healing everyone to authenticate his messiaship, before he teaches openly and as in the sermon on the mount the people understand his teaching. Why the about face in miracles, clear teaching and proclamation into silence, parabolic method and not healing the masses?
Okay. Let me read a few of these chapters before I tee off on this. Thanks.
David wrote: "Bryn asked what others think. I'd be lying if I said I read all the lengthy posts you and Luke have written. But my opinion is just that both sides are over-stating their case.I am not Catholic..."
The reason Irenaeus specifically verifys the four gospels is because of the historical context in which he was writing. "Against Heresies" was written to contend against the Gnosticism of the 2nd Century. At the forefront of the Gnostic proponents was Marcion and the Ebionites, who had led many Christians to reject the OT as well as all the gospels except Luke, he also discarded all the letters of Paul (seeing how Paul preached Jesus as the Christ... The Jewish Messiah.) Marcion's Jesus was extremely Greek and Gnostics promoted such teaching in order to influence the church with their beliefs. And therefore Irenaeus specifically defends the four Gospels as well as the invaluability of the OT. But the presence of NT orthodoxy and an intimate knowledge of all the books of the NT canon was clearly seen in Irenaeus' writings.
If you have any questions in regards to Gonostic's distorted view of Jesus click the link and check it out.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01...
Im not in agreement that the healing ministry of Jesus was limited at this point. Consider Matthew 14:34-36 which reads "And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennersaret. And when the men of that place recognized him they sent around to ALL THAT REGION and brought to him ALL WHO WERE SICK and implored him that they might only touch the fringe of his garment. And AS MANY AS TOUCHED IT were made well"(EMPHASIS MINE!). This doesn't look like a limited healing ministry to me. Perhaps Im missing something. In regards to the seemingly selective nature of much of Jesus' minstry . I can only speculate from other passages such as John 6 where Jesus responds to the crowd who wants him to feed them with physical bread. Jesus rebukes them for their unbeleif and explains to them that he is the true bread which has come down from heaven and unless they eat his body and drink his blood they cannot be saved. Upon hearing this, the crowd ridiculed Jesus and left. To which Jesus responds "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father" (V 65). Jesus seems to explain this turning away of many disciples with the language of election. Now before I am charged with being more "reformed" than the text, lets look back at Jesus' teaching throughout this chapter and we see that he clearly alludes to election in verse 37 "All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." And verse 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." And then in concluding this chapter Jesus reminds the disciples that he chose them, verse 70 "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." This last verse is incredibly profound. Jesus knowing that Judas would betray him, seems to be indicating that even this was according to divine foreknowledge and election which is perhaps why Jesus, later on in John's gospel, refers to Judas' betrayal as a fulfillment of the scriptures (see John 17:12).
These are obviously very weighty doctrines which I do not presume to understand fully, but one of the common principles of proper exegesis is to interpret unclear passages with similar clear passages, and thats what I have attempted to do by referring to John 6 where Jesus explains whats going through his mind as many departed from him.
And in regards to the use of Parables I would give a Two-fold answer. The first reason why Jesus taught in Parables was to fulfill the Old Testament Prophecies concerning him. Matthew 13:34-35 is keen in stating this "All these thing Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, 'I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.'"
Secondly, Jesus speaks in parabolic statements to inform and enlighten his followers in "The secrets of the kingdom" (see Matt 13:11) and thus he makes a distinction between them (his disciples) and others. His disciples seem to be those who have, while others who hear and do not understand seem to be those who have not (See Matt 13:12). Jesus then conculdes this section with a clear explaination by saying "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand (Matt 13:13). Notice Jesus does not say "this is why I speak to YOU in Parables" referring to his disciples, but instead he says "to THEM" referring to the others. Again, there is a clear distinction between the disciples and the other people listening to Jesus' teachings. Jesus then concludes his explaination by citing the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, "Indeed, in THEIR case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says 'you will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never percieve. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' But blessed are YOUR EYES, for they see and YOUR EARS, for they hear" (Matt 13:14-16). Again, there is an evident distinction in Jesus' mind between his disciples and the others. Likewise I understand this passage as also having undertones of the doctrine of divine election. Perhaps Im reading into it, but whenever I see language like "Hardened hearts" and "Eyes which cannot see" my mind immediatly goes to passages such as Romans 9 and 2 Corinthians 4 where the obvious emphasis is God's sovereignty in the work of salvation.
Thats the best I can do. Hope it helps.
Luke, I actually have done my homework but I don't feel the need to get into a pissing match about who has read more books or has more degrees. I don't disagree with anything else you've written and I stand by my statement that the NT came together much earlier then many skeptical people like to admit but a bit later then we Christians like to admit. You seem to have missed the whole part of my post where I talked about appreciating listening to people I disagree with and finding value in hearing other views so you can treat people with those views are real people and not just objects to defeat. Thoughts on that? Are you hear to meet people, hear what others have to say, or just crush people?
Intojoy (post 204) - I am not sure how your post relates to this thread, which has been a discussion of how we non-Catholics know which books are in the NT if we do not accept the authority of the Catholic church. Perhaps you should start a new thread.
Sorry David, I'm new to this app
The canonization of New Testament books was approved by early church fathers. However, every verse of scripture was penned by Jews including Luke - a Jew.
My reason for asking my question has to do with my answer to this thread. Just because the gentile believers convened and approved the books of the NT does not mean that they are responsible for which books are accepted. The books of the NT. had to have been accepted by the apostles in the first century before the third century. If you don't mind, I'd like to enlighten brother Luke (is he catholic? I'm not) on the Matthew 13 turning point in scripture. Once done, I can do my best to tell how and when NT books were accepted. Thanks for your grace.
My reason for asking my question has to do with my answer to this thread. Just because the gentile believers convened and approved the books of the NT does not mean that they are responsible for which books are accepted. The books of the NT. had to have been accepted by the apostles in the first century before the third century. If you don't mind, I'd like to enlighten brother Luke (is he catholic? I'm not) on the Matthew 13 turning point in scripture. Once done, I can do my best to tell how and when NT books were accepted. Thanks for your grace.
No problem, thanks for clarifying the connection. Bryn is Catholic, Luke is not and neither am I.And Luke, sorry if my last post came across kind of passive-aggressive. I think we agree on the data, just not necessarily the interpretation. That is why I said I think you overstate the case. I am not sure how that is misrepresenting you. Again I'll stick with my comment that the NT canon, a definitive list of the 27 books and only those 27, is not as early as I would like it. In other words, it'd be great if we had a definitive list from the 100s or 200s of someone saying (or using as scripture) those 27, all of them, and no additional books. We don't, but as you skillfully show, there is much agreement on most of the books quite early on.
David wrote: "Luke, I actually have done my homework but I don't feel the need to get into a pissing match about who has read more books or has more degrees. I don't disagree with anything else you've written a..."You said that Irenaeus only affirmed the 4 Gospels, I attempted to show you otherwise. Thats what I meant by homework, and by misrepresentation. Thats all.
And in regards to what Im "here" for. I just blog when I cant sleep. Theres not much purpose other than passing time and discussing the things of God. I'm sorry if I come across as a theological hot-head. Its true that I find myself easily disconnected from people in cyber-space and therefore owe an apology to anybody I might have offended by my nonsense.
I actually attempted to pull the plug on my involvement in this discussion awhile ago because debating about our denominations have proven to be an exercise in futility, but it seems that I have been drawn back into it.
Woops
Intojoy wrote: "The canonization of New Testament books was approved by early church fathers. However, every verse of scripture was penned by Jews including Luke - a Jew. My reason for asking my question has to d..."
No, Im not Catholic... Perhaps reading a bit of this thread before posting questions would be beneficial.
Im curious about your statement about Luke being a Jew.... would you care to "enlighten" me about that?
And as far as your Matthew 13 theory I have given my response and am awaiting a reply.
Blessings.
Luke wrote: "and I have clearly said multiple times that the NT Canon was common knowledge to all the churches dating back to the first century with Irenaeus. therefore I don't need the Pope to tell me what the NT is anymore than the early church did."Luke, that just isn't true. No offense.
Source: http://www.thesacredpage.com/2012/03/...
“We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter,though some among us will not have this latter read in thechurch.”― Muratorian Fragment (c. A.D. 170 [?])
“Peter. . . left one epistle of acknowledged authenticity. Perhaps we can allow that he left a second. However, this isdoubtful.. . John, who left one Gospel. . . also left an epistle of very few lines. Perhaps he also wrote a second and a third.However,not everyone declares those to be genuine.””—Origen,Commentary on John5.3 (c. A.D. 228)
“[Concerning Peter’s letters]. . .only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. . . [I]nthe salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom thebook calledThe Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed thatthis too has been disputed by some, and on theiraccount cannot be placed among the acknowledged books;while by others it is considered quite indispensable,especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know,it has been publicly read inchurches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.”—Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History3.3.3–6(c. A.D. 324)
The NT was NOT agreed on.
Luke wrote: ""not to mention, there is much historical doubt about whether or not there even was a Roman papacy before the 6th century under Leo the first .Any secular historian worth his salt dates the origin of the Roman Papacy in the 6th century. When you say "doubt the Roman Papacy", are you saying you aren't sure the Church was a monarchy before then?
Because I'd like to say, it is very possible that the early church was not a monarchy. I've only claimed that Peter was given infalibilty, and that the other apostles knew it (they were there when Jesus gave it to him). As I've shown in Acts, Peter used his infalibilty early on.
If the early church wasn't a monarchy, why are we one today? Great question. Simply put, the early church conisted of men and women who were blessed to have met Jesus, and his apostles. The bishops were oftend maryters. There was a significantly smaller need for the Pope to use his infalibility, so there was a smaller need for the bishops to look up to the Pope. Today, all that has changed. Big time. We have a much greater need for the Pope's infalibility, and so it makes sense that we would look to him as the head guy, and leader. Today,for example, we can't ask the apostles about what Jesus thought of abortion, birth control, euthinasia, IVF, or ask them exaactly what so-and-so meant when he said "fill in the blank" about "chapter_, verse_". But we do have the Pope. And that's how Jesus intended it to be.
However, we do know there were some ranks in the earliest Church. There were priests (presbyters), the Bishops, the deacons (Stephen, Philp, etc.), and so on.
Bryn wrote: "Luke wrote: ""not to mention, there is much historical doubt about whether or not there even was a Roman papacy before the 6th century under Leo the first .Any secular historian worth his salt date..."Can you give me one NT example of a church with only a single elder overseeing it, as opposed to plurality of elders?
And I am sorry, this time around I overstated my claim....I should not have said Canon, because your correct, it was not all 27 books. There was speculation around a couple. Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, Jude. But even these began to fade long before 397 (which your own quotes suggest), and in the first century the Majority of the NT was common knowledge. The Vast Majority.
So I will take that one on the chin, chalk one up for you as a result of my rashness. But the claim still stands, that long before Carthage, the NT documents were in circulation and almost fully accepted by the early churches.
P.S. You still havent answered my question about Peter's statement about being of equal standing with those he wrote to (2 Peter 1:1)... Could I get your thoughts on this? Thanks.
Luke wrote: "And based on your admitted ignorance of church history, and the evidence of foul-play in the Catholic documents, you really cant refute what I have said with anything substantial."1. I don't believe Catholics cover up any more documents than Protestants ever have, if they have in fact covered up any at all.
2. I am perfectly capable of hearing an argument, researching it, and then posting my counter-argument without having a theology degree. I would point out that some great, holy people who din't have any trouble learning the faith without studying theology for years, and neither do I. I may not be able to answer everything you throw my way imediately, but I will reply to it when I can.
I find that insulting. Judge me by what I write in my posts, not by how long I've been to school.
Bryn wrote: "Luke wrote: “Amos wasn't in agreement with Peter's declaration.”Forgive me if I misunderstood, but what I thought you said in one of your posts was that verses 16-20 of Acts 15 is spoken by Amos...."
Bryn, who had the authority to canonize the Old Testament into Koine Greek, a volume known as the Septuigent?
Luke wrote: "and also you said that the Canon was put together so that people could use it in mass. That's not the case, the reason the council of carthage wanted an official list was because Jerome was asked to translate the bible from Koine Greek to Latin (the mother tongue of the Roman empire)."
I think we might be both right.
I'll do some research, but I sincerly believe the Bible was created for the Mass, because I trust Michael Barber, who taught that. Michael Barber is the Professor of Theology, Scripture and Catholic Thought at John Paul the Great Catholic University. He has his Ph.D. in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. His dissertation was on the Historical Jesus and Sacramental Eschatology under the world famous scholar, Colin Brown. He has an M.A. in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and received his B.A. in Theology and Philosophy from Azusa Pacific University. He is the author of several books, including, Coming Soon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation and Applying Its Lessons Today (Emmaus Road, 2006) and Genesis to Jesus: Studying Scripture from the Heart of the Church (Servant, 2007), a Bible study co-authored with Kimberly Hahn. He is a Research Fellow for the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, founded by Scott Hahn. Barber is also the host of Reasons for Faith Live a radio show heard nationwide each Friday at 11am PCT on EWTN’s Radio Network.
Barber has been granted the mandatum by Robert Brom, bishop of San Diego as an ecclesial recognition of his posture and commitment to teach always in communion with the Church.
But yes, Michael could be wrong, so I'll do my homework and get back to you.
Luke wrote: "Bryn wrote: "Luke wrote: “Amos wasn't in agreement with Peter's declaration.”Forgive me if I misunderstood, but what I thought you said in one of your posts was that verses 16-20 of Acts 15 is sp..."
I have no idea who did that. But I'd guess it was the Catholic Church.
Luke wrote: "You still havent answered my question about Peter's statement about being of equal standing with those he wrote to (2 Peter 1:1)... Could I get your thoughts on this? Thanks."Yeah, let me look it up here. Just a sec.
Bryn wrote: "Luke wrote: "You still havent answered my question about Peter's statement about being of equal standing with those he wrote to (2 Peter 1:1)... Could I get your thoughts on this? Thanks."Yeah, l..."
Oh, that's easy. They had equal faith, but they were gifted with different powers. All the aposltes could preach and teach, but only Peter was infalible.
"Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ."
Luke wrote: "Can you give me one NT example of a church with only a single elder overseeing it, as opposed to plurality of elders?"
The Church has never taught that there need be one elder. As far as I know, that's just a tradition that was accepted later on, I'd guess because as the number of laity grew, there weren't enough to have several overseeing one area.
Luke, I have to go now. Bye. And btw, I am working on the reply to you email.
Im pretty confident that your wrong considering "Mass" as you know it, wasn't instituted until the papal rule of Gregory the Great. Now you may be referring to Church gatherings by the phrase "Mass" and in that case the documents were recieved into the early churches long before Carthage, as is seen in the following quote by Justin Martyr (died in 165 AD):"On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons" (First Apology Ch 67).
So it depends on what you mean by "mass." But in regards to the liturgical form that the Roman Catholic church has grown accustomed to, that was set in place under Gregory. But either way its obvious that the churches were not in need of the scriptures per se, the empire was in need of a modern translation from Greek to Latin, hence Jerome's translation (The Vulgate) was the fruit of Carthage. But the church was enriched in the NT long before. Again, this is seen by the fact that Athenasius in his easter letter in 367 listed the 27 books (exactly) that would be in the NT Canon. He even listed Revelation, which didnt make it in at Carthage in 397 but was added in 419.
Also worth noting is that the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 AD) accepted the list before Carthage. Again, the reason why the Carthage counsil was so important was because Jerome's translation spawned from it. But Carthage only put the rubber stamp on what was already known through out the churches.
I feel like I am saying the same things over and over again.
Forgive me for sounding redundant.
Oh, and Luke regarding, "And I am sorry, this time around I overstated my claim....I should not have said Canon, because your correct, it was not all 27 books. There was speculation around a couple. Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, Jude. But even these began to fade long before 397, and in the first century the Majority of the NT was common knowledge."
1. What makes you believe this dispute was settled before 397?
2. Concerning post 217, as you can see, there were other books in question, that didn't make it into the Bible.
3. Let's say the vast majority were agreed upon. You hold Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, and Jude as scripture, do you not? Why? Who had the authority to declare them scripture?
I answered your question before you asked it. I must be prophetic. lol.
Luke, that's a lot of knowledge. Wow. I'm enjoying this.
Luke wrote: "so are you gonna answer my question now? about Peter and about the septuigent ?"I already did, post 223.
Luke wrote: “so James is not contradicting Paul but complementing him by saying that true faith is made evident by the works it produces. so James doesn't teach a works salvation! He is not contrasting faith and works , but rather a dead faith that is not accompanied by works with an authentic faith that is vindicated by obedience. So James only helps in the protestant view of justification by faith alone. As Luther once wrote "were saved by faith alone, but faith that saves is never alone."James is saying that true faith is accompanied by works. But he also CLEARLY says something else.
James 2:24--Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
Emphasis on the ‘NOT BY FAITH ONLY’ part. You just said “So James only helps in the protestant view of justification by faith alone.” You just contradicted the apostle James. Check mate.
Luke wrote: "Im pretty confident that your wrong considering "Mass" as you know it, wasn't instituted until the papal rule of Gregory the Great. Now you may be referring to Church gatherings by the phrase "Mass..."What I mean by Mass is when the Christians read scripture (and before Carthage, non-scripture), as well as partook in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. (BTW, this article’s author tells that before 500 AD, he couldn’t find anyone to deny the real presence. http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/f... )
“We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter,though some among us will not have this latter read in thechurch.”― Muratorian Fragment (c. A.D. 170 [?]) Tells us that people were reading different books, at Mass, around 170 AD.
“[Concerning Peter’s letters]. . .only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. . . [I]nthe salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom thebook calledThe Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed thatthis too has been disputed by some, and on theiraccount cannot be placed among the acknowledged books;while by others it is considered quite indispensable,especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know,it has been publicly read inchurches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.”—Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History3.3.3–6(c. A.D. 324) Tells us that what should be read at Mass was disputed as late as 324 AD.
With regards to Athanasius, why do you believe that Athanasius’s canon was accepted by the Council of Nicaea? For that matter, could you tell me why you believe the Council or Nicaea used the books at all? Is there a quote that tells us this?
Luke (215) - I know, these discussions keep sucking me back in too!Like I said, I think we agree on the data. And I'll confess I didn't "do my homework" prior to posting; I am going based on the memory of books and classes from 7-9 years ago! I was making a positive point - in Irenaeus we have early affirmation of 4 gospels! Hooray!
Bryn wrote: "Luke wrote: "Can you give me one NT example of a church with only a single elder overseeing it, as opposed to plurality of elders?"
The Church has never taught that there need be one elder. As fa..."
The New Testament refers a number of times to elders who served in the role of church leadership (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14) and each church had more than one, as the word is usually found in the plural. The only exceptions refer to cases in which one elder is being singled out for some reason (1 Timothy 5:1, 19). In the Jerusalem church, elders were part of the leadership along with the apostles (Acts 15:2-16:4).
The position of elder was equal to the position of episkopos, translated “overseer” or “bishop” (Acts 11:30; 1 Timothy 5:17). The term “elder” may refer to the dignity of the office, while the term “bishop/overseer” describes its authority and duties (1 Peter 2:25, 5:1-4). In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the bishops and deacons but does not mention the elders, presumably because the elders are the same as the bishops. Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2, 8 gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons but not of elders. Titus 1:5-7 seems also to tie these two terms together.
There is no biblical argument for monarchy in the church. There are different offices which require certain levels of authority. But to have one single person presiding over a whole local church let alone the universal (catholic) church is completely foreign to the NT and the teachings of the Apostles, even Peter (as is contended for above.)
And as far as your guess that the Catholic church was involved in assemblying the Septuigent. The Septuigent was written in the 2nd Century BC. after Alexander the Great's conquest, the Mediterranian was induced with the Greek language, (hence why in Jesus' day people learned to read and write in Koine Greek). Because of the rise of this new language and the almost complete loss of ancient Hebrew, the original language of the OT, a number of Jewish scribes chose to translate the whole Old Testament into Koine Greek.
So, no the Cathollic church had nothing to do with the production of the Septuagint Canon.
So my question is, why do you believe in the Old Testament and yet you had no idea (prior to this post) who authorized it as a canon?
The ultimate answer to who authorized the NT Canon, is the same as who authorized the OT Canon, namely God. He used Scribes and Scholars and Councils to bring about his will, but Ultimately it was his providence that brought them together and has preserved them ever since.
And before you claim that the Septuigent wasn't an inspired translation, tread lightly. Jesus and Paul and Peter quote from it in the NT, which means it was good enough for them to use in their teaching and preaching.
Bryn wrote: "Luke wrote: "Im pretty confident that your wrong considering "Mass" as you know it, wasn't instituted until the papal rule of Gregory the Great. Now you may be referring to Church gatherings by the..."Lol, thats funny. did you ever think that the reason why he couldnt find anyone to deny the real presence is because nobody taught it until Gregory? I challenge you. Find an authentic early church Father that talks about the real presence of Jesus at the Lord's table.
And again, as far as Athenasius goes, he was the bishop of Alexandria, and therefore being in a teaching role in the church he was well aquainted with the documents of the Apostles. Which were referred to as Scripture long before Carthage.
In fact, Paul refers to teaching from the Gospel of Luke as scripture in 1 Tim 5:18 "For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages." The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 23:5, the second one is from Matthew 10:10 or Luke 10:7, and yet both are referred to as Scripture. Paul seemed to understand what the sciptures were, he didnt need the Church to tell Him.
Neither did Peter, in 2 Peter 3:15-16 he writes "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Here Peter refers to Paul's letters as containing wisdom from God (i.e. Inspired) and then Peter puts them in the category with the "other Scriptures." Also, keep in mind that both Paul and Peter are writing to churches, I would assume then that these "Scriptures" werent completely foreign to them considering how they mention them in passing.
Its pretty clear that the early Church founded by the Apostles were not in the dark about what the scriptures were, they may not of had a "Canon" but they had a clear understanding of what was authentic and what wasnt.
When we forgive, what we are saying to the other individual is "I will pay the debt".
On the other hand if we do not forgive the other individual is paying that debt. Even if they do not accept fault, we are forcing them to pay for the debt. We can become vindictive, we can take pleasure in seeing the debt paid, all if we choose not to forgive others.
We think good people are better than bad people. God thinks humble people are better than proud people. We want to take bad people and turn them into good people (by forcing them to pay their debt). God wants to take prideful people and make them into humble people (he's done so at least he's done what's needed to make us thus).
We sometimes think that God chooses the good over the bad or the right over the wrong, God does not operate this way. Because God operates always from grace and from mercy.
What God desires in us is not our goodness, what he desires is our humility. Because none of us is really good. There's just better among us or worst among us. We need to rid ourselves from this kind of thinking, the way the world thinks. If Yeshua did not pay the debt for you and for I then we are of all people most pitiful. But he did. Yeshua said "I forgive you and I will pay the debt".
The difference between our faith and every other belief system is the difference between "advice" and "news". Yeshua didn't just come to give advice. He came to bear our debt, to pay for the penalty of our sins, the wages of sin is death, so that we could be free to forgive one another as he forgave us. And so that we could receive the kind of love we as beings so desperately need - unconditional, accepting love. None of us had this kind of love that we need, only Messiah could love us and he did so, so that we could become the kind of people he created us to be.
Paul in his letter to the Romans is urging us on the basis of all that he taught on, he urges us to become living sacrifices:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:1, 2 KJV)
If we have not understood all that the mercies of God has done, if we have not understood doctrinally and theologically deep enough, all that Messiah has accomplished for us, then we have become useless to him. God is calling us to live our lives as living sacrifices unto him. Our problem is, we are so prideful that we are not willing to give up anything for others. When a sacrifice was laid upon the alter there was a great deal of suffering involved, the animal experienced pain and suffering. What are we willing to give up? What are we willing to place upon the alter? So that we can become a blessing to others, and become servants of the Most High God?
Before my accident, I was unwilling to forgive the brother who had wronged me. And even when a trial before the elders of our church was arranged, my motive was not to forgive but to see this person pay the debt. Even further, by instigating the confrontation with my offender, the desire for justification and retribution blinded me from God's calling on my life. Not only in this instance but for all circumstances, a calling to seek the good, of others unto spiritual learning or edification. I thought I was trying to forgive but now I see how unforgiving and prideful I was. I can see that when we as brothers fail one another and we do, that these are opportunities to be on that alter, to bear the infirmities or moral failings if you will - Rom 15:1, of the weaker party, so that through humble submission, God can begin his work in our lives and in our circumstance.
It's my desire that the miraculous salvation of my physical body (surviving a five story free fall) be used in a testimony for the call for unity in the Body of Messiah. A lesson that I've been taught through extreme physical suffering and learnt through the sober evaluation of who I am in Messiah.
I'd like to thank you Pastor Ed and thank the members of CCCS for all the giving done for me and my family this past year. I'd be happy to share how Romans 15 was instrumental in this weakness of mine anytime, thank you.
On the other hand if we do not forgive the other individual is paying that debt. Even if they do not accept fault, we are forcing them to pay for the debt. We can become vindictive, we can take pleasure in seeing the debt paid, all if we choose not to forgive others.
We think good people are better than bad people. God thinks humble people are better than proud people. We want to take bad people and turn them into good people (by forcing them to pay their debt). God wants to take prideful people and make them into humble people (he's done so at least he's done what's needed to make us thus).
We sometimes think that God chooses the good over the bad or the right over the wrong, God does not operate this way. Because God operates always from grace and from mercy.
What God desires in us is not our goodness, what he desires is our humility. Because none of us is really good. There's just better among us or worst among us. We need to rid ourselves from this kind of thinking, the way the world thinks. If Yeshua did not pay the debt for you and for I then we are of all people most pitiful. But he did. Yeshua said "I forgive you and I will pay the debt".
The difference between our faith and every other belief system is the difference between "advice" and "news". Yeshua didn't just come to give advice. He came to bear our debt, to pay for the penalty of our sins, the wages of sin is death, so that we could be free to forgive one another as he forgave us. And so that we could receive the kind of love we as beings so desperately need - unconditional, accepting love. None of us had this kind of love that we need, only Messiah could love us and he did so, so that we could become the kind of people he created us to be.
Paul in his letter to the Romans is urging us on the basis of all that he taught on, he urges us to become living sacrifices:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:1, 2 KJV)
If we have not understood all that the mercies of God has done, if we have not understood doctrinally and theologically deep enough, all that Messiah has accomplished for us, then we have become useless to him. God is calling us to live our lives as living sacrifices unto him. Our problem is, we are so prideful that we are not willing to give up anything for others. When a sacrifice was laid upon the alter there was a great deal of suffering involved, the animal experienced pain and suffering. What are we willing to give up? What are we willing to place upon the alter? So that we can become a blessing to others, and become servants of the Most High God?
Before my accident, I was unwilling to forgive the brother who had wronged me. And even when a trial before the elders of our church was arranged, my motive was not to forgive but to see this person pay the debt. Even further, by instigating the confrontation with my offender, the desire for justification and retribution blinded me from God's calling on my life. Not only in this instance but for all circumstances, a calling to seek the good, of others unto spiritual learning or edification. I thought I was trying to forgive but now I see how unforgiving and prideful I was. I can see that when we as brothers fail one another and we do, that these are opportunities to be on that alter, to bear the infirmities or moral failings if you will - Rom 15:1, of the weaker party, so that through humble submission, God can begin his work in our lives and in our circumstance.
It's my desire that the miraculous salvation of my physical body (surviving a five story free fall) be used in a testimony for the call for unity in the Body of Messiah. A lesson that I've been taught through extreme physical suffering and learnt through the sober evaluation of who I am in Messiah.
I'd like to thank you Pastor Ed and thank the members of CCCS for all the giving done for me and my family this past year. I'd be happy to share how Romans 15 was instrumental in this weakness of mine anytime, thank you.
the following is a direct quote from the council of Carthage:Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ij. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ij. books. Macchabees, ij. books. THE NEW TESTAMENT. The Gospels, iv. books. The Acts of the Apostles, j. book. The Epistles of Paul, xiv. The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij. The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij. The Epistles of James the Apostle, j. The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j. The Revelation of John, j. book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
Now my question is , according to the council where did the Canon come from? The pope or the fathers?
Luke wrote: "In fact, Paul refers to teaching from the Gospel of Luke as scripture in 1 Tim 5:18 "For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages." The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 23:5, the second one is from Matthew 10:10 or Luke 10:7, and yet both are referred to as Scripture. Paul seemed to understand what the sciptures were, he didnt need the Church to tell Him. Here Peter refers to Paul's letters as containing wisdom from God (i.e. Inspired) and then Peter puts them in the category with the "other Scriptures."Paul clearly considers what Jesus said as Scriptural, and seeing as Scripture is the inspired word of God, Paul was not aproving of Luke or Matthew as canonical when he said this, but instead was proclaiming Christ's divinity. Every word Jesus said is the inspired word of God, because He is God.
As for Peter, I agree Peter considered Paul's epistles as authoritative, but I am not sure Peter was saying that Paul's epistles were to be read at Mass (in other words, that they were canonical). Do you know what the original word is for 'scripture' in this passage?
Luke wrote: "So my question is, why do you believe in the Old Testament and yet you had no idea (prior to this post) who authorized it as a canon?"Carthage told me what books belong in the Bible, and the list was aproved by the infallible Pope.
Like I said, that was a total guess. I didn't bother to Google it. I'd never heard of the Septuigent before.
the original word is Graphos. literally the word just means "writing."
anyway... I'm finally tapping. its been fun yall.
Luke wrote: "the original word is Graphos. literally the word just means "writing.""Then Peter definitly wasn't saying Paul's letters were to be read at Mass.
Luke wrote: ""Lol, thats funny. did you ever think that the reason why he couldnt find anyone to deny the real presence is because nobody taught it until Gregory? I challenge you. Find an authentic early church Father that talks about the real presence of Jesus at the Lord's table. I already did. Didn't you go to the link I posted? Here it is again. http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/f...
Luke wrote: "anyway... I'm finally tapping. its been fun yall."Tapping??
OK, could any of you guys recomend a secular early Church history book? Like, not a textbook, but a book about early church history?
Luke wrote: There is no biblical argument for monarchy in the church.Yes there is, even if you disagree with it.
John 21:17 Feed my sheep.
Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
Matthew 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org...
Bryn, define "secular". My church history prof (who got his doctorate at a Catholic university, btw) said the best early church book is WHC Frend's The Rise of Christianity. It probably qualifies as a textbook though since we used it as a text in my grad class on the early church.
Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley covers more than the early church, but it is a relatively easy read. I think Justo Gonzalez is pretty good too, though I have not read it.
I am not Catholic so I would naturally be closer to Luke's position, but I think you put the agreement on the books of the Bible way too early. Yes, Irenaeus is a source that recognizes the four gospels and I think the unanimity of the four gospels is very early (as opposed to say, the Da Vinci Code). But every list up through the 300s that I've seen either omits a few of the 27 and/or adds a few that are no longer included (Shepherd of Hermas, for example). In terms of Bryn's question, it is not till the late 300s that we get a list of the 27 books, and only the 27 books.
I like to say there is more agreement then some secular people like and more disagreement then some of us Christians like.
Bryn, I think you overstate the case for the authority of the pope in the early church. I think there was some deference to Rome, maybe enough to make us non-Catholics uncomfortable, but it was nowhere near as unanimous or early as you make it. Like Luke, the first pope with any sort of papal authority as we think of it was probably Leo in the 400s (whose Tome is a great work, by the way).
I for one enjoy discussions like this. We may not change our minds, but I know it helps me stop from caricaturing people. I mean, if I really listen to Bryn I have to take account of her as a person and not just spit out arguments to her as a Catholic target; the same would go if/when Luke and I debated Reformed theology or something. I may disagree with Luke, but knowing him as a person and hearing his voice forces me to engage and listen and learn and not just see him as an object.