Posted on 07/20/2013 5:38:15 PM PDT by narses
Not true...people know inside they have a conscience..many people.
Oh it is true!
Then you have made the bible your God....period.
Who wrote the NT? The Amish?
Nah. God is sooo much bigger than that.
No God who wanted to inspire His Holy Word, no Bible.
No God who can omnipotently work His will, no Bible.
No God who can miraculously use fallible men to write His infallible message, carefully preserve His infallible message and recognize His infallible message, no Bible.
That a rooster crows, does not mean he made the sun come up...
To HIM be ALL the glory!
There isn't a Catholic writer in the Bible. None. If indeed, your Church compiled the works of others (and there is doubt they were the first), then so what? Really, so what? Why can't you accept the message without the all of the "Look, look, at me!", "Aren't I something"? How about no God, no Bible. or How about no Hebrews and Jews, no Bible.
I haven’t read through the responses, but let me guess: it wasn’t a productive “discussion”, was it?
Douay-Rheims. NT published at the English College at Rheims 1582. OT published at Douay 1609. KJV published 1611.
King James is believed to have been called a heretic by the Church, and although his mother was a Catholic he was not.
But what about the Douay-Rheims, was it translated by the authority of the Church?
About as productive as any. When you start off a topic labeled Ecumenical and get bushwhacked by Catholic assumptions in the article, it doesn't generally end up good. But no tomatoes or elbows thrown so that's good.
So what? As an Orthodox Christian, the view of any particular Pope of Rome, even before the Latin Schism from the Church is irrelevant to me — as it is to all other Orthodox Christians (or the rest of us in the East) — the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church is all that matters, and the Trullan Synod was a session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and thus not something whose judgements are to be disputed.
“So what? As an Orthodox Christian, the view of any particular Pope of Rome, even before the Latin Schism from the Church is irrelevant to me — as it is to all other Orthodox Christians (or the rest of us in the East) — the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church is all that matters, and the Trullan Synod was a session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and thus not something whose judgements are to be disputed.”
Since you’re an Eastern Orthodox, I was under the impression that your church also distinguishes between these books and the regular canon, putting them aside “to be read,” but not for the purpose of establishing doctrine; this is the historical perspective of that Synod and what it accomplished to begin with, as consistent with the position of a great deal of churchmen both leading up to it and also after, by Popes and churchmen even in the East. They didn’t believe that this synod established that these books were equal to the regular Old and New Testament canon. For example, with the exception of Baruch in this first one from a Patriarch of Constantinople:
“These were the divine Scriptures delivered into the canon by the Church and the number of their verses, as follows 1. Genesis has 4300 verses, 2. Exodus 2800, 3. Leviticus 2700, Numbers 3530, 5. Deuteronomy, 3100, 6. Joshua 2100, 7. Judges and Ruth 2050, 8. first and second Kings, 4240, 9. third and fourth Kings 2203, 10. first and second Chronicles 5500, 11. first and second Ezra 5500, 12. Psalms 5100, 13. Proverbs of Solomon 1700, 14. Ecclesiastes 7500, 15. Song of Songs 280, 16. Job 1800, 17. the prophet Isaiah 3800, 18. the prophet Jeremiah 4000, 19. Baruch 700, 20. Ezechiel 4000, 21. Daniel 2200, 22. the twelve prophets 3000. Total of the books of the Old Testament: 22.
These scriptures of the Old Testament are doubtful. 1. Three books of the Maccabees 7300 verses, 2. Wisdom of Solomon 100, 3. Wisdom of the Son of Sirach 2800, 4. Psalms and Songs of Solomon 2100, 5. Esther 350, 6. Judith 1700, 7. Susanna 500, 8. Tobit which is also Tobias, 700” (S. Nicephori Patriarchae CP, Chronographia Brevis, Quae Scripturae Canonicae I, II, PG 1057-1058. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame).
And John of Damascus, called the “Last of the Fathers” by your church:
“Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven...And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the frirst and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther.
There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series Two, Volume IX, John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVII).
Mind you, I don’t actually buy into your thoughts on the power of “consensus” to begin with. One of the things no one has bothered to dispute are the internal and severe problems within these books you all want us to believe are divine scripture. No matter how hard people might want to think otherwise, a group of people can’t change the facts of reality.
However, if one wants to read these books on the basis of “edification” or “instruction in righteousness,” that is fine, as long as they do not attempt to create doctrine out of its passages.
yes..thank you. No response from her, oh well.
And, we use them in our liturgical celebrations -- the Prayer of Manasseh, something the Latins are missing along with you protestants -- is an important part of Great Compline as said throughout the course of Great Lent, and readings from them occur regularly in the lectionary for Vespers (the only time in the normal liturgical cycle we read from the Old Testament, other than the Psalms).
In fact, they are better regarded in this last respect than the Apocalypse of St. John (a.k.a. Revelations) which is never appointed to be read at any service of the Orthodox Church, though it is part of our canon.
“No, actually, we use them to establish doctrine: the only Scriptural support for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo occurs in 2nd Maccabees (the account in Genesis does not preclude creation from amorphous pre-existing material, and there are no other texts in the Scriptures to support creation ex nihilo, so if you believe it and don’t have 2nd Maccabees in your canon, you’re holding a “non-Biblical” doctrine),”
So your doctrine for God creating all things from nothing (John 1:3, Cor 1:15) comes from a book that was not written by a Prophet, asserts that it is a condensed version of some other original, and even apologizes for any possible imperfections within it?
“...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement.” (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).
“...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers...” 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).
If you took the time to actually read the actual inspired books of the scripture, you wouldn’t have to rely on such an imperfect work for your doctrines.
“(As an aside, I would also note that while the New Testament provides adequate support for the doctrine of the general resurrection, the only plain testimony that it was held by the Jews before Christ’s Incarnation is again to be found in “the Apocrypha”.)”
Interestingly, Christ’s argument for the resurrection did not mention the Apocrypha at all, but on the fact that God is the God of the living and not of the dead.
Mat 22:31-32 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, (32) I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
“In fact, they are better regarded in this last respect than the Apocalypse of St. John (a.k.a. Revelations) which is never appointed to be read at any service of the Orthodox Church, though it is part of our canon.”
Probably because in the 4th century, the Greeks did not consider the Book of Revelation part of the canon at all, as Jerome testifies. But to speak fairly, the Romans did not consider the Epistle to the Hebrews part of the canon back then either. So, you both were out one book.
Oops, one of the references should be to Col 1:16, not 1 Cor 1:15. Typo.
You rightly believe in creation ex nihilo, but it is a doctrine you impose on your short canon of Scripture, rather than derive from it, while for all Christian traditions that existed before the 16th century, it is a Biblical doctrine, precisely because we all (Orthodox, Latin, monophysite and Nestorian alike) have 2nd Maccabees in our canon.
Absolutely! The English College at Douay was the center of English Catholicism during that time period.
“You’re reading into the passages from John and Colossians the Church’s understanding that was based on 2nd Maccabees.”
This is a pretty irrational conclusion, since you didn’t even attempt to defend 2nd Maccabees as actually inspired. This is like trying to stand without ground, or breath without air. Thus I conclude that you either concede the points I made or can’t refute what I said on the matter. In either case, you want me to believe (in effect) that the Jews concluded that God created everything from nothing from a book they didn’t even believe was inspired, rather than concluding that the book is merely a product of a belief already held, which is the most rational conclusion. After all, the book is an abridged and humble history book, and makes no pretensions of being anything more than that.
As to the truth of creation “from nothing,” so as to silence the Mormons rooting for you, it is understood by “the rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the word bara expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing, or egression from nonentity to entity. It does not in its primary meaning denote the preserving or new forming things that had previously existed, as some imagine, but creation in the proper sense of the term, though it has some other acceptations in other places. The supposition that God formed all things out of a pre-existing, eternal nature, is certainly absurd, for if there had been an eternal nature besides an eternal God, there must have been two self-existing, independent, and eternal beings, which is a most palpable contradiction.”
He continues, expanding on the rest of the words in the sentence as the Jews interpret it,
“The word eth, which is generally considered as a particle, simply denoting that the word following is in the accusative or oblique case, is often understood by the rabbins in a much more extensive sense. “The particle eth,” says Aben Ezra, “signifies the substance of the thing.” The like definition is given by Kimchi in his Book of Roots... “The particle eth (says Buxtorf, Talmudic Lexicon, sub voce) with the cabalists is often mystically put for the beginning and the end, as alpha and omega are in the Apocalypse.” On this ground these words should be translated, “God in the beginning created the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth,” i.e. the prima materia, or first elements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively formed. The Syriac translator understood the word in this sense, and to express this meaning has used the word yoth, which has this signification, and is very properly translated in Walton’s Polyglot, Esse, caeli et Esse terrae, “the being or substance of the heaven, and the being or substance of the earth.” St. Ephraim Syrus, in his comment on this place, uses the same Syriac word, and appears to understand it precisely in the same way.”
It doesn’t appear that the Jews are in any way dependent on 2 Maccabees for their conclusions on ex-nihilo.
Teaching is different than doctrine in numerous ways. In Timothy, teaching is used as a verb, as in what one does with Scripture.
There are many teachings that are not doctrine. For example, Jesus teaches us that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. A conflict with the way the Jews understood the commandment. But, the command to keep the day holy is not changed.
Doctrine is a defined believe that is binding on the believers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.