Introduction to the Ecclesiastical books

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Three Classes:

Canonical - Scripture used for establishing doctrine

Ecclesiastical - Scripture not used for establishing doctrine but holding equal value of authority in the church for instruction on Holy Living according to established doctrine.

Apocrypha - Pseudepigrapha and heretical literature aka "false doctrines"; forbidden in the Church/churches per Apostle Paul

 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Andrew,


I'm glad you have come to realize what many do not:


+ Just because something is put into a book by a publisher that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover does NOT mean THEREFORE it (and only it) is officially inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

+ And just because something is specifically, verbatim said to be "Sacred Scripture" by some dude or denomination does NOT mean THEREFORE that's been so determined by the Ruling Body of All Christianity and every publishing house in the world is legally mandated to include those books (and only those books) in any tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover.

+ And that until perhaps 400 years ago, just because something was even called "canonical" does NOT mean THEREFORE it is EQUALLY so with other books (there were LEVELS of canonicity). And that DEUTEROcanonical means it's DEUTEROcanonical, NOT canonical. DEUTEROcanonical means secondarily, under, submissive to, useful to understand something found in the canonical books but not inerrant, not inspired, not canonical. Catholics have called Deuterocanonical books "Deuterocanonical" because it understood them as not canonical but DEUTEROcanonical. Protestants sometimes prefer the term "Old Testament Apocrypha" but often, that term just refers to books (really any) that are NOT canonical but still useful, inspirational, informational. Levels of canonicity.... and some only DEUTEROcanonical.

+ There's a New Testament Apocrypha too. Some of which had much MORE affirmation in the Early Church than books like Judith or Tobit or Third Maccabees. Books like the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermas, The Didachi and many others.

+ The reason why there is no consensus on what is and is not Deuterocanonical is because Christianity it seems never really cared to pin this down... they aren't canonical so no need for a consensus on what is and is not useful. Nathan holds that the books listed in 1563 by the Church of England is the true, universal, ancient Bible all Christians used until some unknown person ripped out a bunch of books that the Assemblies of god uses. But nope, what IS Deutercanonical has never been agreed upon. For years, that Anglican Bible Nathan fights for OFTEN included the Book of Common Prayer in every tome with BIBLE written on the cover..... considered useful and helpful and informational, but not canonical. My tome includes Luther's Small Catechism which I think is much more helpful than Psalm 151.


Now if only Nathan realized such.


Blessings!


- Josiah



.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Andrew,


I'm glad you have come to realize what many do not:


+ Just because something is put into a book by a publisher that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover does NOT mean THEREFORE it (and only it) is officially inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

+ And just because something is specifically, verbatim said to be "Sacred Scripture" by some dude or denomination does NOT mean THEREFORE that's been so determined by the Ruling Body of All Christianity and every publishing house in the world is legally mandated to include those books (and only those books) in any tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover.

+ And that until perhaps 400 years ago, just because something was even called "canonical" does NOT mean THEREFORE it is EQUALLY so with other books (there were LEVELS of canonicity). And that DEUTEROcanonical means it's DEUTEROcanonical, NOT canonical. DEUTEROcanonical means secondarily, under, submissive to, useful to understand something found in the canonical books but not inerrant, not inspired, not canonical. Catholics have called Deuterocanonical books "Deuterocanonical" because it understood them as not canonical but DEUTEROcanonical. Protestants sometimes prefer the term "Old Testament Apocrypha" but often, that term just refers to books (really any) that are NOT canonical but still useful, inspirational, informational. Levels of canonicity.... and some only DEUTEROcanonical.

+ There's a New Testament Apocrypha too. Some of which had much MORE affirmation in the Early Church than books like Judith or Tobit or Third Maccabees. Books like the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermas, The Didachi and many others.

+ The reason why there is no consensus on what is and is not Deuterocanonical is because Christianity it seems never really cared to pin this down... they aren't canonical so no need for a consensus on what is and is not useful. Nathan holds that the books listed in 1563 by the Church of England is the true, universal, ancient Bible all Christians used until some unknown person ripped out a bunch of books that the Assemblies of god uses. But nope, what IS Deutercanonical has never been agreed upon. For years, that Anglican Bible Nathan fights for OFTEN included the Book of Common Prayer in every tome with BIBLE written on the cover..... considered useful and helpful and informational, but not canonical. My tome includes Luther's Small Catechism which I think is much more helpful than Psalm 151.


Now if only Nathan realized such.


Blessings!


- Josiah



.

Ecclesiasticals and Canonical ARE equal Josiah, they serve different roles but one is no less important than the other
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,580
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ecclesiasticals and Canonical ARE equal Josiah, they serve different roles but one is no less important than the other

Where did you get your definition of "Ecclesiastical"? Canonical books are the ones that are the Word of God, meaning they are far more important since they are inspired and God breathed.
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ecclesiasticals and Canonical ARE equal Josiah, they serve different roles but one is no less important than the other
Not according to Athanasius:
"There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings.

Not according to Rufinus:
"But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees."

Both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly state these books are NOT CANONICAL. The reason they do this is to differentiate them from books where ARE canonical. To claim that the two groups are equal is pure nonsense. A book which is non-canonical obviously cannot be on the same level as one which is canonical. To claim otherwise is ridiculous and totally misrepresents both Athanasius and Rufinus point concerning canonicity.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Not according to Athanasius:
"There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings.

Not according to Rufinus:
"But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees."

Both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly state these books are NOT CANONICAL. The reason they do this is to differentiate them from books where ARE canonical. To claim that the two groups are equal is pure nonsense. A book which is non-canonical obviously cannot be on the same level as one which is canonical. To claim otherwise is ridiculous and totally misrepresents both Athanasius and Rufinus point concerning canonicity.

Ecclesticals are not Canonical but ARE scripture AND Church tradition!

Thank you for providing proof of my point!

Note that Rufinus says next that the APOCRYPHA would not have been read in the churches, he is not talking about the ECCLESIASTICALS WHICH HE LISTED THE NAMES OF
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ecclesticals are not Canonical


... then "they" (whatever "they" are) are NOT equal to the canonical.

It seems early Christians found LOTS of things to be helpful but not canonical (as Christians STILL do)... But Tradition does not regard these as canonical (and since they are not canonical, EXACTLY what materials individuals so consider isn't very important).




.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... then "they" (whatever "they" are) are NOT equal to the canonical.

It seems early Christians found LOTS of things to be helpful but not canonical (as Christians STILL do)... But Tradition does not regard these as canonical (and since they are not canonical, EXACTLY what materials individuals so consider isn't very important).




.
Oxford Dictionary
Scripture:
the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible.

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
2 Timothy 3:14-17

Athanasius Against the Heathen par 11.1 (296-373 ad)
But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life. For neither were they from the beginning, neither shall they be for ever" (Wis 14:13)

Origen de Principiis book 2 ch 1.5 (185- 254ad)
But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, "I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist

Tyranus Rufinus Commentary on the symbol of the apostles, 36-38 (340-410 ad)
but let us read all the laws, those in the New and those in the Old Testament, that are set down about almsgiving, and let us be very earnest about this matter. For this cleanses from sin. For "give alms, and all things will be clean unto you." (Tobit)

Cyprian of Carthage On the Dress of Virgins, 10 (200-270 ad)
“since Holy Scripture says…[quotes Wisdom 5:8].

Cyprian of Carthage On Mortality, 9 (200-270 ad)
Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying…[quotes Sirach 2:1-5].”

Clement of Rome first letter to the Corinthians ch 27 (27-97 ad)
"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]"

Hyppolytus Commentary on Daniel ch 6.55 (170-236 ad)
‘“For even now the angel of God.’ He shows also, that when Susannah prayed to God, and was heard, the angel was sent then to help her, just as was the case in the instance of Tobias [See Tobit 3:17] and Sara. For when they prayed, the supplication of both of them was heard in the same day and the same hour, and the angel Raphael was sent to heal them both."

Eusebius of Caesarea Church History book 5 (295-340ad)
"Well did the Scripture speak, saying, that God is one, who has created and completed all things,'" etc. And he uses almost the precise words of the Wisdom of Solomon, saying: vision of God produces immortality, but immortality renders us near to God."

Augustine of Hippo Enchiridion of Christian Doctrine Book 2 par 12-13 (354-430 ad)
There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

Augustine Reply to Faustus the Manichean Book 22 par 35 (354-430 ad)
We learn from Scripture that, among the ancients, it was customary to call cousins brothers and sisters. Thus Tobias says in his prayer to God, before having intercourse with his wife, 'And now, O Lord, Thou knowest that not in wantonness I take to wife my sister;" though she was not sprung immediately from the same father or the same mother, but only belonged to the same family. And Lot is called the brother of Abraham, though Abraham was his uncle. And, by the same use of the word, those called in the Gospel the Lord's brothers are certainly not children of the Virgin Mary, but all the blood relations.

Vincent of Lerins Commonitory,21:51 (390-450 ad)
"[T]he divine Oracles cry aloud, 'Remove not the landmarks, which thy fathers have set,'[Prov 22:28] and 'Go not to law with a Judge,'[Sirach 8:14] and 'Whoso breaketh through a fence a serpent shall bite him,'[Eccles 10:8]"

Epistle of Barnabas Ch 6 (70-90 ad)
For the prophet speaks against Israel, themselves, saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us." (Wisdom 2:12)

Jerome Letter 71 par 3 (347-420 ad)
We read in Ecclesiasticus: "he that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith."

Jerome Letter 75 par 2 (347-420 ad)
For, as it is written in the book of Wisdom, he was "taken away lest that wickedness should alter his understanding

Jerome Letter 1 par 9 (347-420 ad)
Let Susannah also rise in the nobility of her faith before the thoughts of all; who, after she had been condemned by an unjust sentence, was saved through a youth inspired by the Holy Ghost

Jerome Letter 7 par 6 (347-420 ad)
Fortunate the roof which shelters the martyr-mother of the Maccabees, with her sons around her, each and all wearing the martyr's crown!
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Oxford Dictionary
Scripture:
the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible.

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good wo
2 Timothy 3:14-17

God is not bound by an English dictionary.....


The word "grafi" means "a writing" - anything written is grafi , something scripted. Anything written is, by definition, "grafi" or "scripture." TRUE, the word CAN be used to mean inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (that is CANONICAL). But not necessary. The Greek word was also used in a religion context to mean something of value in terms of our faith. I THOUGHT you were stressing this very point..... that something written (grafi) being used and regarded as helpful does not mean ergo it is regarded as canonical.

I don't agree with your interpretation of this verse that Paul insists that everything written is so profitable... I think Paul is referring to that which is canonical.

And I remind you: We have esteemed Fathers who specifically referred to the Didache with the word "scripture".... we have esteemed Fathers who referred to the Epistle of Barnabas as "Scripture".... we have esteemed Fathers who refer to the Shepherd of Hermas as "scripture" yet neither you nor Nathan regard those books as canonical. There are more examples, too. So, according to you, "Scripture" by no means equals "canonical." And since Nathan does NOT insist on an international law that all tomes marketed that have the word "BIBLE" on them must contain The Didache so he doesn't agree that being labeled "scripture" therefore mandates they appear in Bibles or be used by Christians.





.
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ecclesticals are not Canonical but ARE scripture
That is nonsense. Books that are canonical are authoritative and therefore by definition Scripture. Those books which are NOT canonical are and cannot be authoritative and consequently cannot be Scripture.

Thank you for providing proof of my point!
:ROFLMAO: Too bad neither Athanasius and Rufinus agree with you.

Note that Rufinus says next that the APOCRYPHA would not have been read in the churches, he is not talking about the ECCLESIASTICALS WHICH HE LISTED THE NAMES OF
What in the word are you talking about? I never said he was.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That is nonsense. Books that are canonical are authoritative and therefore by definition Scripture. Those books which are NOT canonical are and cannot be authoritative and consequently cannot be Scripture.
LOL yeah if you ignore the rest of what they wrote you little cherry picker you!

Too bad neither Athanasius and Rufinus agree with you.
They both agree with me, post the rest of what they say
What in the word are you talking about? I never said he was.
🥱
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
LOL yeah if you ignore the rest of what they wrote you little cherry picker you!
There was no point since there was nothing worthy of comment.

The fact is you made the following false claim:
Ecclesiasticals and Canonical ARE equal Josiah
Both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly state these books are NOT CANONICAL. The reason they do this is to differentiate them from books where ARE canonical. To claim that the two groups are equal is pure nonsense. A book which is non-canonical obviously cannot be on the same level as one which is canonical. To claim otherwise is ridiculous and totally misrepresents both Athanasius and Rufinus point concerning canonicity.

They both agree with me, post the rest of what they say.
Not when one read them.
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
God is not bound by an English dictionary.....


The word "grafi" means "a writing" - anything written is grafi , something scripted. Anything written is, by definition, "grafi" or "scripture." TRUE, the word CAN be used to mean inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (that is CANONICAL). But not necessary. The Greek word was also used in a religion context to mean something of value in terms of our faith. I THOUGHT you were stressing this very point..... that something written (grafi) being used and regarded as helpful does not mean ergo it is regarded as canonical.

I don't agree with your interpretation of this verse that Paul insists that everything written is so profitable... I think Paul is referring to that which is canonical.

And I remind you: We have esteemed Fathers who specifically referred to the Didache with the word "scripture".... we have esteemed Fathers who referred to the Epistle of Barnabas as "Scripture".... we have esteemed Fathers who refer to the Shepherd of Hermas as "scripture" yet neither you nor Nathan regard those books as canonical. There are more examples, too. So, according to you, "Scripture" by no means equals "canonical." And since Nathan does NOT insist on an international law that all tomes marketed that have the word "BIBLE" on them must contain The Didache so he doesn't agree that being labeled "scripture" therefore mandates they appear in Bibles or be used by Christians.





.

Paul never mentioned the word "canon" but he does mention the word "scripture".

What you "think" Paul meant is not backed up by Paul nor biblical tradition.

Technically the NT is "Apocrypha" to the Jews, and Mr. Brilliant (Jerome) labeled the books that the "sons of their father the devil" rejected as "Apocrypha" according to them (hence, Jewish Apocrypha)

That is not speculation either, Jerome was sent to translate from what the Jews had in their modern Hebrew by order of the Pope, he succeeded.. thats all
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There was no point since there was nothing worthy of comment.

The fact is you made the following false claim:

Both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly state these books are NOT CANONICAL. The reason they do this is to differentiate them from books where ARE canonical. To claim that the two groups are equal is pure nonsense. A book which is non-canonical obviously cannot be on the same level as one which is canonical. To claim otherwise is ridiculous and totally misrepresents both Athanasius and Rufinus point concerning canonicity.


Not when one read them.
Origen! Why did you say Maccabees was Holy Scripture then??
"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, "I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist"
-Origen 185- 254ad


Augustine of Hippo Enchiridion of Christian Doctrine Book 2 par 12-13 (354-430 ad)
There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Paul never mentioned the word "canon" but he does mention the word "scripture".

True. And the word "grafi" simply means something written, it does NOT necessarily mean something that serves as a canon/rule/norm.

I don't agree with you that St. Paul is saying that anything written down (any grafi) is ERGO (by the function of being grafi) is inerrant, canonical, divinely-insripturated words of God - what GOD has written, so that the Book of Mormon and the DiVinci Code are "profitable" because they are scripture. I think he's referring to DIVINELY-inscripturated, to the canonical. We just disagree on the interpretation here. ODD because I thought your whole point is that "Scripture" isn't necessarily canon, perhaps I misunderstood or you have reversed yourself.

And again, if you are correct as the Greek word "grafi" necessarily means "inerrant, canonical, DIVINELY inscripturated words of God" ... and if esteemed Fathers specifically (by that word) label books as such, then you insist that the Didache is canonical, the Shepherd of the Hermas is Scripture, the Epistle of Barnabas is Scripture - and many more. And Nathan would insist those 3 MUST be in every tome a publishing house markets that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover.



What you "think" Paul meant is not backed up by Paul nor biblical tradition.


I think so. But if so, please list the commentators that insist Paul means ANYTHING written. That "grafi" by function of being written, is thus canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated so Paul also means this post of mine (which is, of course, written.... "grapfi")




.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
True. And the word "grafi" simply means something written, it does NOT necessarily mean something that serves as a canon/rule/norm.

I don't agree with you that St. Paul is saying that anything written down (any grafi) is ERGO (by the function of being grafi) is inerrant, canonical, divinely-insripturated words of God - what GOD has written, so that the Book of Mormon and the DiVinci Code are "profitable" because they are scripture. I think he's referring to DIVINELY-inscripturated, to the canonical. We just disagree on the interpretation here. ODD because I thought your whole point is that "Scripture" isn't necessarily canon, perhaps I misunderstood or you have reversed yourself.

And again, if you are correct as the Greek word "grafi" necessarily means "inerrant, canonical, DIVINELY inscripturated words of God" ... and if esteemed Fathers specifically (by that word) label books as such, then you insist that the Didache is canonical, the Shepherd of the Hermas is Scripture, the Epistle of Barnabas is Scripture - and many more. And Nathan would insist those 3 MUST be in every tome a publishing house markets that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover.






I think so. But if so, please list the commentators that insist Paul means ANYTHING written. That "grafi" by function of being written, is thus canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated so Paul also means this post of mine (which is, of course, written.... "grapfi")




.
When Paul addresses unbelievers he uses their books to his advantage

When addressing Christian converts he uses HOLY Scripture

When we address the Jews we use the common scripture (Canon)

When we address the church we use all Scripture (Timothy)
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Origen! Why did you say Maccabees was Holy Scripture then??
"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, "I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist"
-Origen 185- 254ad


Origen also said that The Epistle of Barnabas is "Holy Scripture" and called it "catholic" (universally so regarded).
Origen also said that the Shepherd of Hermas is "Holy Scripture" and used it several times canonically.
Origen also said that the Didache is "Holy Scripture"
Origen also said that the Gospel of the Hebrews is "Holy Scripture."

So, since you hold that the personal opinion of a man named Origen is the Authority on what is and is not Holy Scripture, why aren't you arguing for those books to be regarded as inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God? AND the very same Origen (a bit of a heretic) ALSO insisted that books do NOT - NOT - have the same authority or function. He Divided books into various levels of authority insisting they are not equal. He insisted "holy scripture" does NOT mean equal. So since you hold this man (a bit of a heretic) is the infallible divine Authority on this matter, why just 1 Maccabees?


And Andrew, perhaps if you stepped back you'll see you are just agreeing with me. THERE WAS NO Authoritative man or denomination or meeting that determined what is and is not canon. There were different opinions.... even up to Augustine (well past the early church era) what we have is TRADITION - and not a perfect one, and one that took over 500 years to develop. AND you'd see that NOT all books even called Holy Scripture and books USED and quoted and read in the Sunday Mass were necessarily seen as canon. For example, Athanasius of Alexandria says that in his view, rhe Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas are "Scripture" but not "canon" (He does use the word "canon"). And the Divine, infallible Authority you embrace, Origen, STRESSED that not all Scripture is on the same level (he did not use the word canon but he did speak of some books being under and submissive to others). And of course, you are ignoring that for centuries (and STILL often among Catholics) books you and Nathan fight for were and are called DEUTEROcanonical, the very word means secondary, under, submissive to.




.

 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
When Paul addresses unbelievers he uses their books to his advantage

Yup. He used scriptures (grafi). I think you just destroyed your whole apologetic. The word "scripture" does not equal "canon."

But I agree that is what Paul meant in the verse you quoted, he meant CANONICAL scriptures, I disagree with you that Paul is saying everything written is prophetable for the creation of, correcting of and teaching of sound doctrine - so that the Book of Mormon is canonical. I disagree.


 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Origen also said that The Epistle of Barnabas is "Holy Scripture" and called it "catholic" (universally so regarded).
Origen also said that the Shepherd of Hermas is "Holy Scripture" and used it several times canonically.
Origen also said that the Didache is "Holy Scripture"
Origen also said that the Gospel of the Hebrews is "Holy Scripture."

So, since you hold that the personal opinion of a man named Origen is the Authority on what is and is not Holy Scripture, why aren't you arguing for those books to be regarded as inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God? AND the very same Origen (a bit of a heretic) ALSO insisted that books do NOT - NOT - have the same authority or function. He Divided books into various levels of authority insisting they are not equal. He insisted "holy scripture" does NOT mean equal. So since you hold this man (a bit of a heretic) is the infallible divine Authority on this matter, why just 1 Maccabees?


And Andrew, perhaps if you stepped back you'll see you are just agreeing with me. THERE WAS NO Authoritative man or denomination or meeting that determined what is and is not canon. There were different opinions.... even up to Augustine (well past the early church era) what we have is TRADITION - and not a perfect one, and one that took over 500 years to develop. AND you'd see that NOT all books even called Holy Scripture and books USED and quoted and read in the Sunday Mass were necessarily seen as canon. For example, Athanasius of Alexandria says that in his view, rhe Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas are "Scripture" but not "canon" (He does use the word "canon"). And the Divine, infallible Authority you embrace, Origen, STRESSED that not all Scripture is on the same level (he did not use the word canon but he did speak of some books being under and submissive to others). And of course, you are ignoring that for centuries (and STILL often among Catholics) books you and Nathan fight for were and are called DEUTEROcanonical, the very word means secondary, under, submissive to.




.
Because we are all in agreement with the New Testament and I am sure that every letter written by the Apostles and the 70 who followed could have made it into Scripture but were too repetitive, the Gospel is short, simple and sweet and we are discussing the OT.

What do the Ecclesiastical books offer that were new or tied to the NT?

Tortured martyred brothers dying in faith unto a better resurrection is first mentioned.

The feast of Dedication/Hanukkah and driving out the wicked from the Holy Temple is first mentioned

The Seven Angels of God who stand before the throne of God are first mentioned

Driving out of "Demons" from those of faith are first mentioned

The Son of God tortured to death and MOCKED by his enemies is remarkably mentioned and prophesied
"Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture so that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death"

Almsgiving for cleansing is first mentioned

ETC!!!

These were all NEW revelations that Jesus and the Apostles would later ACT on
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom