Apocrypha?

[Albion]

Plenty of councils take The Book of Mormon as scripture- that doesnt make it scripture.

Name one.

What doesn't make sense?

No one before you has said the Book of Mormon is scripture or ever has been accorded that status in the Christian churches other than for the followers of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Therefore, to have you say that councils DID accord it that status is a bit confusing.

 

[sunshinemama91]

Name one.




No one before you has said the Book of Mormon is scripture or ever has been accorded that status in the Christian churches other than for the followers of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Therefore, to have you say that councils DID accord it that status is a bit confusing.

how on earth are you even confusing what I'm saying?

There are plenty of councils (obviously that have nothing to do with legitimate Christian councils although they might think they are) who take the Book of Mormon as scripture. Hence Mormonism.
Obviously it's not scripture.


JUST BECAUSE a council considers themself to be in truth, doesnt matter from which century or which faith- doesn't mean they are correct.

It's a parallel.

 

[Albion]

how on earth are you even confusing what I'm saying?

Then let's just say that I am not confused but was trying to be polite in the face of such an obvious error as to say that there are many church councils that consider(ed) the Book of Mormon (!) to be divinely inspired ("Plenty of councils take The Book of Mormon as scripture- that doesnt make it scripture").

Seeing you repeat the claim even as you are backpedaling on it, I think the "problem" may have been a misuse of or misunderstanding about the meaning of councils, even though they were talked about quite a bit and some named in the preceding posts.





.

 

[sunshinemama91]

I'm not backpedaling, I'm breaking it down because somehow you are missing and misinterpreting everything I'm saying.

 

[sunshinemama91]

I mean I dont think I can put it in more simple terms. By definition a counsil is an advisory, deliberative, or legislative body of people formally constituted and meeting regularly..... look at the Mormon church, look at the way their leadership is set up.
Just because a counsil exists doesnt make them correct about their beliefs.

 

[Andrew]

Councils really are a catch 22, they decide what's inspired so we 'must believe them'!
That's a bunch of phooey, of course the NT is accurate because if the gnostic writings were teaching another gospel (which is no gospel at all) we can easily identify it. The real council are the apostles and what they accepted at the time NOT what men decided long after they died.

 

[sunshinemama91]

Councils really are a catch 22, they decide what's inspired so we 'must believe them'!
That's a bunch of phooey, of course the NT is accurate because if the gnostic writings were teaching another gospel (which is no gospel at all) we can easily identify it. The real counsel are the apostles and what they accepted at the time NOT what men decided long after they died.

That's exactly what I'm attempting to explain.

 

[Albion]

I mean I dont think I can put it in more simple terms. By definition a counsil is an advisory, deliberative, or legislative body of people formally constituted and meeting regularly..... look at the Mormon church, look at the way their leadership is set up.

So, all along we all have been discussing church councils--ecumenical councils plus such as the Council of Carthage and others....but then you blithely substituted for the accepted meaning of the word just any ol' gathering of Mormons!!

You have a nice day. This is a waste of my time.

 

[Andrew]

So, all along we all have been discussing church councils--ecumenical councils plus such as the Council of Carthage and others....but then you blithely substituted for the accepted meaning of the word just any ol' gathering of Mormons!!

You have a nice day. This is a waste of my time.

This whole time you and Josiah made such a big emphasis on these councils but whenever it is suggested that they accepted Maccabees we were just giving you that double standard feeling which is why councils should have simply stuck to inspiring Christian creeds and not cherry picking OT literature just because the Jews started doing it, confusion IMHO..
Albion we'll have better conversations on other subjects again but this one obviously upsets you and I'm sorry, so far this thread has been a success because there has been no flaming I'm thankful for that aren't we all?

 

[Josiah]

This whole time Josiah made such a big emphasis on these councils

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]


My friend, I didn't bring them up. I simply noted that the mentioned 3 were all Latin, regional, non-binding, non-ecumenical meetings.... and that the issue was not which books are and are not the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule, the Canon, the norma normans but rather which books may be read from in the lectionary (which many if not most Protestants also allow to this day).

I noted that NONE - not one - of the Seven Ecumenical Councils even mentioned this issue, much less officially, formally made some defining declaration. The repeated comment that "THE CHURCH" accepted some (unknown, mysterious) "set" of them as the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule, the Canon, the norma normans is simply wrong, a falsehood. I supplied a link to prove this point.






.

 

[Albion]

This whole time you and Josiah made such a big emphasis on these councils but whenever it is suggested that they accepted Maccabees we were just giving you that double standard feeling which is why councils should have simply stuck to inspiring Christian creeds and not cherry picking OT literature just because the Jews started doing it, confusion IMHO..
Albion we'll have better conversations on other subjects again but this one obviously upsets you and I'm sorry, so far this thread has been a success because there has been no flaming I'm thankful for that aren't we all?

Well, that's only because they did NOT accept Maccabees, Andrew.

 

[Albion]

Well, that's only because they did NOT accept Maccabees, Andrew.

And yes, it is a bit distressing to read, time after time, nothing but a reassertion that Maccabees was accepted as divinely inspired, no controversy, no question. I expected at least for there to be something of substance offered in rebuttal, something to support that POV, not just a restatement of the same thing over and over again.

 

[Josiah]

JUST BECAUSE a council considers themself to be in truth, doesnt matter from which century or which faith- doesn't mean they are correct.

There have been seven ecumenical councils (the last ended around 800 AD). Protestants do not see them as infallible... and there is a whole issue around the 7th one (including WHICH was the real meeting) but generally, we do accept them and their conclusions. It's why most Protestants are trinitarians, why we accept the Two Natures of Christ, why we reject a whole host of very popular ideas (some of which are still around).

Now, BESIDES those seven, there have been THOUSANDS of regional or denominational meetings (I participated in one last summer in Tampa, Florida). While SOME of these may have SOME role in SOME denomination or locale, none of the are ecumenical and they certainly are held in FAR less esteem. These "councils" "synods" "conventions" etc. are not nearly on the same level. And of course even here, we need to look at the context of their resolutions; for example, where they deciding which books may be read from in church OR which books are the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule, the Canon, the norma normans? Are they speaking ONLY for their denomination, local/region/jurisdiction or for every Christian on the planet?

The history is unmistakable. The Church has NEVER spoken on the issue of which books are and are not the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule, the Canon, the norma normans. I supplied the link to the Seven Ecumenical Councils to PROVE this. A few DENOMINATIONS have (very few, actually... and none before the 15th Century) but NEVER the whole church. SOME books simply gathered universal acceptance (simply by tradition and consensus) BUT we have another 7-20 that still were read from (NO univerally accepted "set" of them!), and there were perhaps 40 or so floating around (including several Christian ones).

Problem is: There has NEVER, EVER been any consensus on WHICH books (beyond the 66)...... OR on their status, function, use. The solid consensus/tradition around 66 books (by our modern count) has existed since the 4th Century but this has simply been missing from these 7-20 or so various DEUTERO (the word means "secondary" or "under") ones. SOME "sets" of them are read and used in SOME denominations, SOME are never read or used in SOME denominations.



- Josiah




.

 

[sunshinemama91]

There have been seven ecumenical councils (the last ended around 800 AD). Protestants do not see them as infallible... and there is a whole issue around the 7th one (including WHICH was the real meeting) but generally, we do accept them and their conclusions. It's why most Protestants are trinitarians, why we accept the Two Natures of Christ, why we reject a whole host of very popular ideas (some of which are still around).

Now, BESIDES those seven, there have been THOUSANDS of regional or denominational meetings (I participated in one last summer in Tampa, Florida). While SOME of these may have SOME role in SOME denomination or locale, none of the are ecumenical and they certainly are held in FAR less esteem. These "councils" "synods" "conventions" etc. are not nearly on the same level. And of course even here, we need to look at the context of their resolutions; for example, where they deciding which books may be read from in church OR which books are the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule, the Canon, the norma normans? Are they speaking ONLY for their denomination, local/region/jurisdiction or for every Christian on the planet?

The history is unmistakable. The Church has NEVER spoken on the issue of which books are and are not the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule, the Canon, the norma normans. I supplied the link to the Seven Ecumenical Councils to PROVE this. A few DENOMINATIONS have (very few, actually... and none before the 15th Century) but NEVER the whole church. SOME books simply gathered universal acceptance (simply by tradition and consensus) BUT we have another 7-20 that still were read from (NO univerally accepted "set" of them!), and there were perhaps 40 or so floating around (including several Christian ones).

Problem is: There has NEVER, EVER been any consensus on WHICH books (beyond the 66)...... OR on their status, function, use. The solid consensus/tradition around 66 books (by our modern count) has existed since the 4th Century but this has simply been missing from these 7-20 or so various DEUTERO (the word means "secondary" or "under") ones. SOME "sets" of them are read and used in SOME denominations, SOME are never read or used in SOME denominations.



- Josiah




.

You totally get what I'm saying. Cool and thank you!

 

[FredVB]

That I believe that the heavenly Father, the Logos who is the Word with God that in the incarnation is known as the Son of God, and the Spirit of God, are each God in their unity, while there is just the one real God, is not at all from any council but from scripture passages I know for showing that. The same for a number of other things said from councils, which are known from scriptures. I read books such as Maccabees also, and know some things from those that really happened. But that in itself does not mean to me they are scriptures for me, I just know things from such that really happened, as I still can from other books too.

 

[NathanH83]

That I believe that the heavenly Father, the Logos who is the Word with God that in the incarnation is known as the Son of God, and the Spirit of God, are each God in their unity, while there is just the one real God, is not at all from any council but from scripture passages I know for showing that. The same for a number of other things said from councils, which are known from scriptures. I read books such as Maccabees also, and know some things from those that really happened. But that in itself does not mean to me they are scriptures for me, I just know things from such that really happened, as I still can from other books too.

For you they’re not scripture. But for me they are scripture.

 

[FredVB]

For you they’re not scripture. But for me they are scripture.

Okay...

But why?

 

[NathanH83]

Okay...

But why?

There’s a lot of convincing reasons