Ecclesiasticals VS Canonical

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
BOTH are called by early Church Fathers as Sacred Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

BOTH are allowed to be read out loud in church as Holy Scripture.

However ONLY the books deemed Canonical are to be used to establish doctrine BECAUSE they are they which hold higher rank over OTHER Holy Scripture.

This is told to us by none other than Origin and Rufinus.

The THIRD class of books are known as Apocrypha, these are NOT Holy Inspired and NOT allowed into the church.
These are the Heretical books NOT written by who they say they are, they are known to us as the Apocalyptic writings, they were (and are) considered extremely dangerous because they contained supposed authorship of Apostles and other disciples which if they were true or believed to be true it would produce great heretical doctrine and fool many (save the Elect!).

All ante-Nicene Christians accepted the so called "Apocrypha" as GOD BREATHED HOLY INSPIRED SACRED SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD OF GOD and that's why they preached it's parables and wisdom to the congregations for lessons on Godly living and the many examples of God distributing righteous Faith into the meek and timid to go forth in His Will!
 
Last edited:

Stephen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
136
Location
Liverpool, England
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
BOTH are called by early Church Fathers as Sacred Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

BOTH are allowed to be read out loud in church as Holy Scripture.

However ONLY the books deemed Canonical are to be used to establish doctrine BECAUSE they are they which hold higher rank over OTHER Holy Scripture.

This is told to us by none other than Origin and Rufinus.

The THIRD class of books are known as Apocrypha, these are NOT Holy Inspired and NOT allowed into the church.
These are the Heretical books NOT written by who they say they are, they are known to us as the Apocalyptic writings, they were (and are) considered extremely dangerous because they contained supposed authorship of Apostles and other disciples which if they were true or believed to be true it would produce great heretical doctrine and fool many (save the Elect!).

All ante-Nicene Christians accepted the so called "Apocrypha" as GOD BREATHED HOLY INSPIRED SACRED SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD OF GOD and that's why they preached it's parables and wisdom to the congregations for lessons on Godly living and the many examples of God distributing righteous Faith into the meek and timid to go forth in His Will!

I'm finding this rather confusing.
I have a few questions for clarification.

1. However ONLY the books deemed Canonical are to be used to establish doctrine BECAUSE they are they which hold higher rank over OTHER Holy Scripture.
Which books are not Canonical but are Holy Scripture?

2. The THIRD class of books are known as Apocrypha, these are NOT Holy Inspired and NOT allowed into the church.
What are the first two classes of books?

3. All ante-Nicene Christians accepted the so called "Apocrypha" as GOD BREATHED HOLY INSPIRED SACRED SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD OF GOD
Which books are you referring to?

Thanks
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I'm finding this rather confusing.
I have a few questions for clarification.

1. However ONLY the books deemed Canonical are to be used to establish doctrine BECAUSE they are they which hold higher rank over OTHER Holy Scripture.
Which books are not Canonical but are Holy Scripture?

2. The THIRD class of books are known as Apocrypha, these are NOT Holy Inspired and NOT allowed into the church.
What are the first two classes of books?

3. All ante-Nicene Christians accepted the so called "Apocrypha" as GOD BREATHED HOLY INSPIRED SACRED SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD OF GOD
Which books are you referring to?

Thanks
_____________

Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the Son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.
38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches.
These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.

____________________

Note: the Book of Hermes and the Judgment of Peter is stated to be the only two NT era books accepted into the Church to be read, all other apocalyptic writings (and there are very many) were not to be read in the church, they are NOT the Word of God, and those are the true Apocrypha.

"Ecclesiastical" books are inspired scripture but used for anecdotal evidence of already established doctrine or examples of evidence of Faith in the stories based on the former OT doctrines/teachings, unlike "Canon" used for establishing doctrine and teachings.
 

Stephen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
136
Location
Liverpool, England
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Am I right; these books:- Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees are what are called deuterocanonical by the Catholic Church and are considered as fully canonical

All other books including the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter are apocrypha.
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just to clarify what Rufinus said.

All of the books he listed are the ones passed down through traditions from the church fathers for the Church for teaching the Word of God and any other books that are NOT listed are NOT from the fountains of the Word of God.
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Am I right; these books:- Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees are what are called deuterocanonical by the Catholic Church and are considered as fully canonical

All other books including the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter are apocrypha.
I believe at the time Rufinus wrote this the church would have included Hermes and the Judgment of Peter, or at least I think thats what he implies, unless he is referring to those two books as the other writings/apocrypha?

Anyway it didn't make it into the NT yet he calls it the little book in the NT, I believe some churches used Clement and another letter from Paul that was too redundant to keep in the Bible, ive read them and they are nothing new
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Am I right; these books:- Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees are what are called deuterocanonical by the Catholic Church and are considered as fully canonical

All other books including the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter are apocrypha.
Maybe he meant that the book of hermes and judgment of Peter WOULD have been read in the churches if they had appealed to doctrine (but they didnt) thus these other writings are apocrypha and not to be read in churches

Does that make sense?
 

Stephen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
136
Location
Liverpool, England
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Does that make sense?
I guess so.

Dave Armstrong has an interesting chart on the historical process of the NT Canon.


It's more than just Rufinus and Origen. It seems different parts of the Church had different views.

And even now the Orthodox have more books that you list in the OT -I think they hace 3 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
4,094
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
BOTH are called by early Church Fathers as Sacred Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

BOTH are allowed to be read out loud in church as Holy Scripture.

However ONLY the books deemed Canonical are to be used to establish doctrine BECAUSE they are they which hold higher rank over OTHER Holy Scripture.

This is told to us by none other than Origin and Rufinus.

The THIRD class of books are known as Apocrypha, these are NOT Holy Inspired and NOT allowed into the church.
These are the Heretical books NOT written by who they say they are, they are known to us as the Apocalyptic writings, they were (and are) considered extremely dangerous because they contained supposed authorship of Apostles and other disciples which if they were true or believed to be true it would produce great heretical doctrine and fool many (save the Elect!).
I, too, found some of that post to be confusing, but here's a fact that probably should be taken account of....

Both the Anglican and Lutheran churches, which together constitute a very large percentage of the Protestants of the world, consider the Apocryphal books to be uninspired BUT call for them to be read in the churches for the insights and instruction in morals, etc. that they contain.
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I, too, found some of that post to be confusing, but here's a fact that probably should be taken account of....

Both the Anglican and Lutheran churches, which together constitute a very large percentage of the Protestants of the world, consider the Apocryphal books to be uninspired BUT call for them to be read in the churches for the insights and instruction in morals, etc. that they contain.

That's great except that according to Rufinus and Origen, todays so called "Apocrypha" are actually the "Ecclesiasticals" that Rufinus mentions (he lists Wisdom, Tobit, Maccabees etc), this list along with the canonical list are both divinely inspired "fountains of the Word of God"...

Canonical = For establishing Doctrine/Teachings. Inspired.
Ecclesiastical = Examples of righteous living according to established doctrines. Inspired.
Apocryphal = uninspired, not from the fountains of the Word of God, not to be read in church

If "Canonical" were the OT (School Master) then "Ecclesiastical" would be the NT (the graduate)
 

Albion

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
4,094
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That's great except that according to Rufinus and Origen, todays so called "Apocrypha" are actually the "Ecclesiasticals" that Rufinus mentions (he lists Wisdom, Tobit, Maccabees etc), this list along with the canonical list are both divinely inspired "fountains of the Word of God"...
Yeah, that's swell, but it was a matter of fact that I was adding to what you wrote.

It doesn't matter what Rufinus or Origin had to say about it.

It is NOT the case that the Apocrypha isn't allowed to be read in church. Indeed, doing so is ordered. But doing so does not mean that these books are considered to be part of the Bible. Among Protestants, they are NOT considered to be "divinely inspired" or "the Word of God." Among Catholic and Orthodox Christians, of course the story is different.

Also, it is NOT the case that all "ante-Nicene Christians" accepted the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture. That issue was in doubt among the Jews of the first century and it continued over to the early Christians.
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yeah, that's swell, but it was a matter of fact that I was adding to what you wrote.

It doesn't matter what Rufinus or Origin had to say about it.

It is NOT the case that the Apocrypha isn't allowed to be read in church. Indeed, doing so is ordered. But doing so does not mean that these books are considered to be part of the Bible. Among Protestants, they are NOT considered to be "divinely inspired" or "the Word of God." Among Catholic and Orthodox Christians, of course the story is different.

Also, it is NOT the case that all "ante-Nicene Christians" accepted the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture. That issue was in doubt among the Jews of the first century and it continued over to the early Christians.
Well technically it is part of the Bible because as Rufinus and Origen state (Rufinus translated from Origen) both Canon and Ecclesiasticals (Wisdom, Tobit, Maccabees etc) are the Word of God as handed down by the first fathers, the disciples of the Apostles and therefore the Apostles themselves, read the letter again.

The Protestants can say that Job isn't divine scripture, but that doesn't make it so!
 

Albion

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
4,094
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Well technically it is part of the Bible because as Rufinus and Origen state (Rufinus translated from Origen) both Canon and Ecclesiasticals (Wisdom, Tobit, Maccabees etc) are the Word of God as handed down by the first fathers, the disciples of the Apostles and therefore the Apostles themselves, read the letter again.
Honestly, I'm amazed to have anyone here think that the books of the Bible were decided by two such unlikely figures from history as Rufinus and Origen!

What on Earth would make you think that they have the answer while and all the councils, churches, saints, theologians, and etc. somehow failed to give them proper credit?
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Honestly, I'm amazed to have anyone here think that the books of the Bible were decided by two such unlikely figures from history as Rufinus and Origen!

What on Earth would make you think that they have the answer while and all the councils, churches, saints, theologians, and etc. somehow failed to give them proper credit?
It wasn't just those to guys, it was unanimous across the board save a very very few but this was concerning doctrine and not what is uninspired or not, not all of the Holy Scriptures were destined for canonization, others had a different role in the Church, you can see this practice in their teachings here...


...notice how they were used specifically in their sermons to recognize how faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God, using examples of character as evidence of faith for edification, in other places they are used in attempts to call out the Jews for rejecting as "apocrypha" when they are NOT.

It is written "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly"

Canon is no different when used in this manner but due to the unbelieving Jews rejection of certain books (which also includes the whole of the NT) the Jewish canon became Christian OT Canon for the purpose of witnessing to the Jews, in other words since the Jews later on rejected Wisdom of Solomon, it was pointless to bring up Wisdom Chapter 2 in pointing out the prophetic foreshadowing of Christ, just like its pointless to quote the Apostles when witnessing to Jews, thus "canon" is used for doctrine and conversions unlike ecclesiasticals which are used in the church for edification and lessons on faithfulness.
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I forgot the introduction to Rufinus' list of Holy Scriptures (again some are called Canon and some are called ecclesiastical)

[36] This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, " All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction." And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
10,836
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
BOTH are called by early Church Fathers as Sacred Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

BOTH are allowed to be read out loud in church as Holy Scripture.

However ONLY the books deemed Canonical are to be used to establish doctrine BECAUSE they are they which hold higher rank over OTHER Holy Scripture.


Andrew....


1. As has been conveyed to you and Nathan many, many times over the past year... and as you both agree with but also passionately disagree with... there is little connection between what is READ (even officially in the Lectionary) and what is regarded as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. To this day, both the Anglican and Lutheran communities often INCLUDE readings in the Sunday Lectionary that are NOT regarded as such (or even "Scripture") and this has always been the case. And to this day, it is very common for Christian writers and pastors to quote from books, song lyrics, movies, news stories, human interest stories, etc. in books and sermons (often as much as Scripture) but this has no connection to thus having been declared to be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.


2. As has been conveyed to you two repeatedly, there was (until perhaps 400-500 years ago) a differentation made EVEN WITH (what is specifically called ) "SCRIPTURE." When Luther and the Anglican Church EMBRACE some books as DEUTEROcanonical (a term used for these for centuries.... a term that means "secondarily-canonical") they were simply embracing the common view that these books (about which no one had ever agreed) were NOT the equal of others: Good to read (including in the Lectionary).... fine to use as a sermon text..... possible to use to SUPPORT something taught elsewhere (supportive role) but NOT equal to the others (Calvin's 66). Luther included one MORE of these in his German translation than the modern RCC does, the Anglican Church included SEVERAL more than the modern RCC does... Luther simply conveying his personal opinion that they are "DEUTERO" and the Anglican Church making that official for the Anglican Church in its 39 Articles. But even among the 27 NT books, there were those "spoken for"(4 Gospels/Acts, Paul's letters, 1 Peter, 1 John for example) and "spoken against" (James, Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation for example). Luther and Calvin both spoke in the historic manner when they suggested that what's in the "spoken for" trump or superced what's in the "spoken against" and should take priority in the Lectionary and also in Christian education (Luther once suggesting the "spoken against" and DEUTERO not be in schools for children simply as a matter of stewardship).



All ante-Nicene Christians accepted the so called "Apocrypha" as GOD BREATHED HOLY INSPIRED SACRED SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD OF GOD and that's why they preached it's parables and wisdom to the congregations for lessons on Godly living and the many examples of God distributing righteous Faith into the meek and timid to go forth in His Will!


1. I continue to note how both you and Nathan call these books you think should be legally required to appear in all Bibles as "APOCRYPHA." That's a term much more negative than "DEUTEROcanonical". And a much more modern one. And here you seem to reject them even more than than the Anglican Church or Luther. Yet you rebuke Luther and the Anglican Church's position. And I continue to note the very, very great care you and Nathan take to not identify these "Apocrypha" books.... and the reason is understood by everyone, there is no agreement as to what is and is not this corpus, there are not two denominations on the planet that agree as to which should be embraced (even in the very weak way you suggest, less than Luther or the Anglicans).


2. Your "ALL" is a baseless claim. And obviously you know it. So does Nathan. Your whole apologetic rests on this extreme hyperbole. We don't even know who ALL the anti-nicene Christians were, much less that 100% of them (or ANY percent of them) accepted anything as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Yes, you can quote two or three or four Christian individuals expressing THEIR view or observations, but 2-4 individuals is not "ALL." These incredible, baseless hyprebole seems the basis of the entire apologetic and is an obvious reason to reject it. Now, IF your point was "we have some limited evidence as to what may have been embraced as canonical" - then we'd agree, but that's not "ALL", it's not the basis of the apologetic, and it's not Christianity (or Judaism).




Friend,

There is no law anywhere that mandates that publishing houses INCLUDE or EXCLUDE anything from tomes they market with "BIBLE" written on the cover. Nathan's persistent claim is just.... well....silly and obviously baseless, completely baseless.

And the claim that JUDAISM did something in this regard... or that CHRISTIANITY did something in this regard are both absolutely baseless, which is why he keeps dodging the request to tell us WHEN and WHERE and to explain why there was no agreement on this .... and still isn't; never has Christianity agreed on what is or is not DEUTEROcanonical (or to use your much more negative term, your rejection of ANY status at all, of "Apocrypha"). His claim is just historically BASELESS. And again, his "ALL" and your "ALL" are even more baseless.

What is true is that for the great majority of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran) there have been books beyond the 66 that have played a role;.... that have been INCLUDED in biblical tomes and the Sunday Lectionary... but not embraced as EQUAL to the 66. John Calvin however clearly rejected anything beyond the 66. He was certainly NOT the first to do so but Calvinism impacted a lot of Protestantism (especially in the US) and the modern "Evangelical" movement also bought into this. BUT any "anger" about this should be leveled at Calvinism and "Evangelicalism" not Protestantism...and perhaps is just a reason to come back and leave those communities. And Nathan's claim that publishing houses are not permitted to print them.... that no one will read them unless they are included in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover.... that he was not allowed to read them.... that Protestants hold they cant be read or used.... are all just silly, baseless, absurd and obviously WRONG. But it is his passion to perpetuate these pure myths, over and over and over, for more than a year now. I think you would be wise to distance yourself from his myths and claims.

There is a common (and frankly understandable) myth in much of modern Protestantism that God sent out this mass email in 33 AD listing all the books of the Bible... and every Christian and church obeyed that until the RCC after Luther added 7 books to support their false doctrines. It's a myth. It may disturb some Protestants, but the historic reality is that there SEEMS to have been a growing CONSENSUS around 27 NT books and we can see this rather firmly by 400 AD but this is ONLY a significant consensus - what is called TRADITION - not a matter of Christianity doing something in this regard (which has NEVER happened). The consensus also embrace the OT (in part because some heretics rejected it) but it seems as LESS so than the NT (again, that RANKING that was common until a few centuries ago). And it seems the Jewish idea of RANKING continues (Jews accepted the Books of Moses above the History and Prophets and those above the Wisdon Literature - many still do) and while Jews largely abandoned some books, Christians still embraced some (NEVER agreeing on WHICH) - but as with the Jews, not equally canonically. We don't KNOW why the 27 Books of the NT became such (theories abound).... we don't KNOW why 39 OT books (by our count) got accepted in Christianity. But it does appear that the DEUTERO books were considered DEUTERO.... a point that Luther and Anglicanism embrace (Luther personally, Anglicanism officially) but these books seem largely moot. Not quoted much, not used much... and thus just not much of an issue. Until Trent.



Blessings


Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
c42f8fe6efbb6a61997804a52feb01cb.jpg
 

Albion

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
4,094
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What difference does it make what RUFINUS said? Seriously.
 

Andrew

Site Mentor
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
5,907
Age
36
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What difference does it make what RUFINUS said? Seriously.
It mattered before when user Origen posted Rufinus' canonical list in another thread to disprove me, but now that it backfired this is the classic double standard reaction I expected
 

Albion

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
4,094
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It mattered before when user Origen posted Rufinus' canonical list in another thread to disprove me, but now that it backfired this is the classic double standard reaction I expected
It's ridiculous to repeal the consensus of the whole church through most of its history because two men--Origin, who was anathematized, and Rufinus, who was neither a theologian nor a bishop but was influenced by Origin, held some contrary views in their day.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom