Ecclesiasticals VS Canonical

[Andrew]

Have you check them all?

The many I have read sure (as I read them!) I then like to read the quotes in the LXX to get the full context, anyway im done feeding you today.

 

[Josiah]

Andrew,


Following up on posts 24 and 26....


Actually, there is one point you've made on this whole topic (in all Nathan's threads) that is not only true but significant and not widely known. Until maybe 400 years ago (500 max), books found in Bibles... books called "Scripture"... books included in lectionaries and used in sermons and by theologians... were NOT necessarily seen as equal.

In the NT, books were spoken of as "HOMOLOGOMENA" (agreed upon, non-debated, spoken in favor). Today we have VERY little evidence that these were ever seriously challenged or debated (although admittedly, we have VERY little evidence on this at all). And we have 11+ books called "ANTIEGOMENA" (debated, controversal, spoken against) - some of which you accept (Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation of John) and some you don't (Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gosepl of the Hebrews and others). These were often accepted and often rejected, these were called "Scripture" and even said to be words of God and "catholic". By the end of the 4th Century, this controvery faded but through the time of the Reformation, there was still a distinction made between Homologomena asnd Antiegomena (For example, early in his life, Luther felt that James and Romans contradicted each other .... this was EASY to resolve, Romans "trumps" James).

It seems something similar may have existed for the OT (although we have virtually ZERO evidence - writings about this topic simply don't exist until just before Jesus). But it is suggested that the Books of Moses were widely held as fully canonical.... below that (maybe WAY below that) were the Prophets and Histories.... below that were the Wisdom books... and below that (maybe just DEUTEROcanonical) were a host of other books (there exact number and names never spelled out) that were read, honored, used - but not seen as canonical in the full sense of being a Rule or Norm for the evaluation of dogma and praxis. We know the Pharisees and Sadducees DISAGREED on this which is pretty strong evidence that not all Jews had the same view as to STATUS (or even number) - even though they USED a lot of books. As I understand it, Christians in speaking of the OT spoke of CANONICAL and DEUTEROcanonical.... Christians embraced 39 (by our count) - the Books of Moses, the Prophets/Histories and the Wisdom all as Canonical (the Jewish distinctions don't seem to have carried over) BUT saw others as DEUTERO.

You're right about the various range in STATUS. It's a little known reality .... in large part because it's faded away, Christians today accept all books as equal in every way (although it's common to find Christians submit the OT to the NT meaning the NT is more canonical than the old). Thus, you fundamentally disagree with Nathan. Just because a book was called "Scripture" by 1 or 2 guys.... or even by 300 guys.... or even at some regional meeting of a diocese.... but it does NOT mean it was canonical or normative.... it MAY have been nothing more than an inspirational and helpful piece of literature.

There is SOMETHING we agree on in this matter, LOL. At least I hope so.


Blessings, my friend.


- Josiah



.

 

[Origen]

The many I have read sure (as I read them!)

So the answer is no you have not check ALL of them. Thanks

 

[Andrew]

Andrew,


Following up on posts 24 and 26....


Actually, there is one point you've made on this whole topic (in all Nathan's threads) that is not only true but significant and not widely known. Until maybe 400 years ago (500 max), books found in Bibles... books called "Scripture"... books included in lectionaries and used in sermons and by theologians... were NOT necessarily seen as equal.

In the NT, books were spoken of as "HOMOLOGOMENA" (agreed upon, non-debated, spoken in favor). Today we have VERY little evidence that these were ever seriously challenged or debated (although admittedly, we have VERY little evidence on this at all). And we have 11+ books called "ANTIEGOMENA" (debated, controversal, spoken against) - some of which you accept (Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation of John) and some you don't (Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gosepl of the Hebrews and others). These were often accepted and often rejected, these were called "Scripture" and even said to be words of God and "catholic". By the end of the 4th Century, this controvery faded but through the time of the Reformation, there was still a distinction made between Homologomena asnd Antiegomena (For example, early in his life, Luther felt that James and Romans contradicted each other .... this was EASY to resolve, Romans "trumps" James).

It seems something similar may have existed for the OT (although we have virtually ZERO evidence - writings about this topic simply don't exist until just before Jesus). But it is suggested that the Books of Moses were widely held as fully canonical.... below that (maybe WAY below that) were the Prophets and Histories.... below that were the Wisdom books... and below that (maybe just DEUTEROcanonical) were a host of other books (there exact number and names never spelled out) that were read, honored, used - but not seen as canonical in the full sense of being a Rule or Norm for the evaluation of dogma and praxis. We know the Pharisees and Sadducees DISAGREED on this which is pretty strong evidence that not all Jews had the same view as to STATUS (or even number) - even though they USED a lot of books. As I understand it, Christians in speaking of the OT spoke of CANONICAL and DEUTEROcanonical.... Christians embraced 39 (by our count) - the Books of Moses, the Prophets/Histories and the Wisdom all as Canonical (the Jewish distinctions don't seem to have carried over) BUT saw others as DEUTERO.

You're right about the various range in STATUS. It's a little known reality .... in large part because it's faded away, Christians today accept all books as equal in every way (although it's common to find Christians submit the OT to the NT meaning the NT is more canonical than the old). Thus, you fundamentally disagree with Nathan. Just because a book was called "Scripture" by 1 or 2 guys.... or even by 300 guys.... or even at some regional meeting of a diocese.... but it does NOT mean it was canonical or normative.... it MAY have been nothing more than an inspirational and helpful piece of literature.

There is SOMETHING we agree on in this matter, LOL. At least I hope so.


Blessings, my friend.


- Josiah



.

I'll have to read this post again later but I just wanted to note real quick that the Samaritans for example only accepted the Torah as divine Scripture, on the farthest side of the spectrum you have the EOC who accept the entire LXX as divine Scripture.. Yet in an earlier post you stated that God divinely appointed the Reformers to establish His final order of Scripture, did I get that right?

 

[Tigger]

My take on the theme of this thread is that it’s based on the works of David Bercot and it would be fair to do at least a cursory critique of his work.

Link provided below

David Bercot. Well-intentioned but error-prone

Answering Bible contradictions, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations

www.tektonics.org

 

[Andrew]

My take on the theme of this thread is that it’s based on the works of David Bercot and it would be fair to do at least a cursory critique of his work.

Link provided below

David Bercot. Well-intentioned but error-prone

Answering Bible contradictions, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations

www.tektonics.org

That's nothing more than someone twisting through personal interpretations to have the church fathers disagree with David, a very very low blow with no other support than bias interpreting.

What would help us out more is to actually listen to Bercots work/lectures and then make your own judgment

 

[Tigger]

That's nothing more than someone twisting through personal interpretations to have the church fathers disagree with David, a very very low blow with no other support than bias interpreting.

What would help us out more is to actually listen to Bercots work/lectures and then make your own judgment

Take no offense Andrew but that’s how I evaluate all theologians. A person can make what sounds like strong arguments but it’s not until they are tested that we know how well their arguments hold up.

By the way I’ve listened to many of Bercot’s videos on YouTube and have no disrespect for him and would like to see him do debates to hear how he responds to opposing view points point for point.

 

[NathanH83]

I’ve seen pastors show movie clips from Shawshank Redemption, Matrix, Narnia, Aladdin, Monty Python, and given quotes from Lincoln, U2, Walt Disney, Theodore Roosevelt, CS Lewis, JR Tolkien, and a number of other people.

But NOT ONCE have I EVER had a pastor quote or share ANYTHING from Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, etc.

After all the years. After junior high youth group, high school youth group, college group, all the Sunday sermons, church camps, conferences, discipleship groups, Bible study groups, cell groups, and all the various ministry events over the course of 20 years….

After all these years of being involved in ministry, I have NEVER heard ANYONE from the pulpit or leading any Bible study or ministry event even so much as share something interesting from the books that are called “apocrypha”.

The early church clearly permitted them to be read in church. But today? We avoid it like the PLAGUE! We think it’s dangerous Catholic heresy.

Aladdin is allowed. Star Wars is allowed. The Matrix is allowed.
But Maccabees? Nah.
Tobit? Guess again!
Judith? Not a chance.
Wisdom? Go fish!
Sirach? Nope!

So these books are historically useful, and they’re good to read….

…just don’t read them in church, or else you’re a heretical Catholic.

They’re good to read! But they’re also dangerous, so don’t read them.

Makes perfect sense! Perfectly not confusing!

 

[Lamb]

But NOT ONCE have I EVER had a pastor quote or share ANYTHING from Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, etc.

That's because the duty of the pastor is to share God's Word to feed the flock. They do that by reading the canonical books of the bible.

 

[Andrew]

That's because the duty of the pastor is to share God's Word to feed the flock. They do that by reading the canonical books of the bible.

But many of the ante-nicene fathers used them in the churches and even refer to them as Gods word, and not just on occasion but very fluently, especially from the book of Wisdom.

 

[Origen]

But many of the ante-nicene fathers used them in the churches and even refer to them as Gods word, and not just on occasion but very fluently, especially from the book of Wisdom.

And some did not.

 

[Andrew]

And some did not.

And most did

 

[Origen]

And most did

Here we go again. So you have check all of them?

 

[Andrew]

Here we go again. So you have check all of them?

And they quote from the so-called "apocrypha" more than the other OT books

 

[NathanH83]

And some did not.

The ones that did not are the ones who favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint.
Sooo……obviously this issue goes hand in hand with the Septuagint.

 

[Origen]

And they quote from the so-called "apocrypha" more than the other OT books

Proof?

 

[Andrew]

Proof?

Right there in the puddin'

 

[Origen]

Right there in the puddin'

So you don't have any. Thanks

 

[Origen]

The ones that did not are the ones who favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint.
Sooo……obviously this issue goes hand in hand with the Septuagint.

You have made the claim now where is the objective evidence that was the reason for all of them?

 

[Andrew]

So you don't have any. Thanks

Such extraordinary claims I am making, what will you do if I tediously compile for you every single citation for every quotation of every ante nicene father? Will you double check them?