Protestants: What weight do you give to the "Apocrypha"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mercygate said:
Right. It is no secret that the Septuagint was the Bible in widest use at the time of Christ. It included the Deuterocanonical Books, of course.
Click to expand...
Fascinating…

(now if I can substantiate that from an objective source…)

Wait a minute…wasn’t the Septuagint in Greek (pardon my ignorance here)? Why would a Greek Bible be the one that Christ used?
 
MarcoPolo said:
Very interesting posts Publisher. What are some of the NT apocrypha you mention?
Also you mentioned that we are called to share in Christ’s incarnation. Do Friends also teach that we are called to share in his suffering?
Click to expand...
I like some of the Nag Hamaddi writiings…“Thunder Perfect Mind” is one…Gospel of Thomas is another.

The Letter to the Laodicians has been used by various Friends scholars…can’t name them off the top of my head.

Yes, we too are called to share in his suffering…“to complete his suffering…” I think is how Paul stated it.
 
mozart-250 said:
Fascinating…

(now if I can substantiate that from an objective source…)

Wait a minute…wasn’t the Septuagint in Greek (pardon my ignorance here)? Why would a Greek Bible be the one that Christ used?
Click to expand...
I cut and pasted my own post from another thread.

The Protestant OT is based on the Palestinian canon used by Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine. The Catholic OT is based on the Alexandrian canon used by the Greek speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean(including Palestine).

The city of Alexandria had the greatest library in the ancient world. Around 250 B.C. a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was begun by 70 Jewish scholars. From this translation we get the name Septuagint(Latin for 70).

This Greek translation was very popular because Greek was the common language of the entire Mediterrranean world by the time of Christ. Hebrew was a dying language. Jews in Palestine usually spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint would have been the translation used by Jesus and the NT writers. In fact over 300 quotes from the OT found in the NT are from the Septuagint. Remember also that the entire NT was written in Greek.

The Hebrew canon was established by Jewish rabbis at the council of Jamnia about 100 A.D., perhaps in reaction to the Christian Church, which was using the Alexandrian canon. The Jews rejected 7 books, as well as portions of Daniel and Esther chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the Septuagint translated into Greek.

The Christian Church continued to use the Septuagint. When the Church officially approved which books composed the canon of the Bible (Hippo 393AD, Carthage397AD) it approved the 46 books of the Alexandrian canon as the canon for the OT. For 1600. This canon was a matter of uncontested faith until the Reformation.

In 1529 Martin Luther proposed the Palestinian canon of 39 books in Hebrew as the OT canon. He found his justification for removing the books in the old concerns of the council at Jamnia, that the Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts. However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, making their rejection unsupportable on those grounds.

Here is the real question. Which OT would you rather use? The OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by the Jews who rejected Christ and persecuted Christians?

If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow Jesus and the early Church. If your Bible omits these seven books, you follow the non-Christian Jews at Jamnia and Martin Luther
 
Publisher said:
I like some of the Nag Hamaddi writiings…“Thunder Perfect Mind” is one…Gospel of Thomas is another.

The Letter to the Laodicians has been used by various Friends scholars…can’t name them off the top of my head.

Yes, we too are called to share in his suffering…“to complete his suffering…” I think is how Paul stated it.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Don’t you ever run into “scriptures” that conflict?

Like if I’m not mistaken the Gospel of Thomas asserts that women must become like men to be saved, no? And the Christian Scriptures assert that God has no partiality.
 
Publisher said:
I like some of the Nag Hamaddi writiings…“Thunder Perfect Mind” is one…Gospel of Thomas is another.

The Letter to the Laodicians has been used by various Friends scholars…can’t name them off the top of my head.

Yes, we too are called to share in his suffering…“to complete his suffering…” I think is how Paul stated it.
Click to expand...
All of this is a complete revelation to me. I have NEVER heard it before and am perfectly agape.

Don’t you have a problem with the fact that things like the Gospel of Thomas contain material that directly contradicts the rest of your “unclosed” canon? I mean, when the canon was closed in the 4th Century, among the criteria were association with an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle, its consonance with what the Church believed, and its recognition by universal (or near universal) use in churches across the Christian world. So stuff like the Gospel of Thomas or even the Epistle of Barnabas, which was (unlike the Gospel of Thomas) highly respected, were omitted because they could not stand up . . .

This is unbelieveably fascinating. I never knew much about the Society of Friends, but his is something that I NEVER would have dreamed in my wildest fantasy.
 
mercygate said:
All of this is a complete revelation to me. I have NEVER heard it before and am perfectly agape.

Don’t you have a problem with the fact that things like the Gospel of Thomas contain material that directly contradicts the rest of your “unclosed” canon? I mean, when the canon was closed in the 4th Century, among the criteria were association with an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle, its consonance with what the Church believed, and its recognition by universal (or near universal) use in churches across the Christian world. So stuff like the Gospel of Thomas or even the Epistle of Barnabas, which was (unlike the Gospel of Thomas) highly respected, were omitted because they could not stand up . . .

This is unbelieveably fascinating. I never knew much about the Society of Friends, but his is something that I NEVER would have dreamed in my wildest fantasy.
Click to expand...
I do not view scripture…or tradition…as inerrant or infallible. Everything we “know” about the Eternal comes through our own experiences. If I were overly concerned about “doctrine” and “dogma” I would definitely have issue…but scripture is not, nor inteneded to be a “play by play” rule book, it seeks to convey man’s experience with the Light…it is imperfect and if "conflicts’ occur between the “non-canonical” and the “canonical” it is simply man’s finite understanding seeking to find adequate words to convey the Eternal.

One of the reasons Friend’s worship is “silent” is that God is to be experienced as a Real Presence in our midst…the scriptures themselves testify that a time will come when God’s word is not to be contained on written paper or stone, but to be written on the human heart…we are now in that time…God’s word calls us to make this a better world…to live in peace…to follow the Gallilean’s footsteps in bringing God into “incarnation” into our world by participating in his 'incarnation."

Truth with a capital “T” is beyond our words to explain…“Eyes have not seen nor ears heard…”…“now we see through a glass darkly…but then face to face we will know…”…“I heard a voice like the sound of many waters…no man could speak of the things…”

While most Friends view the scriptures very seriously, we understand it’s limitations…“He is present among his people to teach them himself…” “You tell me what the apostles say, you tell me what the prophets say…but what can you say?” are some quotes from George Fox as he was asked about scripture and challenged on their meanings.

Friends see true “religion” not being reduced to “doctrine” and “dogma” but being lived out in our humaness with the “proof” of how “true” something is by how we treat others and love sacrificially as Jesus showed us how to live as understood through the 'testimony" of scripture.
 
Publisher said:
I do not view scripture…or tradition…as inerrant or infallible. Everything we “know” about the Eternal comes through our own experiences. If I were overly concerned about “doctrine” and “dogma” I would definitely have issue…but scripture is not, nor inteneded to be a “play by play” rule book, it seeks to convey man’s experience with the Light…it is imperfect and if "conflicts’ occur between the “non-canonical” and the “canonical” it is simply man’s finite understanding seeking to find adequate words to convey the Eternal.

One of the reasons Friend’s worship is “silent” is that God is to be experienced as a Real Presence in our midst…the scriptures themselves testify that a time will come when God’s word is not to be contained on written paper or stone, but to be written on the human heart…we are now in that time…God’s word calls us to make this a better world…to live in peace…to follow the Gallilean’s footsteps in bringing God into “incarnation” into our world by participating in his 'incarnation."

Truth with a capital “T” is beyond our words to explain…“Eyes have not seen nor ears heard…”…“now we see through a glass darkly…but then face to face we will know…”…“I heard a voice like the sound of many waters…no man could speak of the things…”

While most Friends view the scriptures very seriously, we understand it’s limitations…“He is present among his people to teach them himself…” “You tell me what the apostles say, you tell me what the prophets say…but what can you say?” are some quotes from George Fox as he was asked about scripture and challenged on their meanings.

Friends see true “religion” not being reduced to “doctrine” and “dogma” but being lived out in our humaness with the “proof” of how “true” something is by how we treat others and love sacrificially as Jesus showed us how to live as understood through the 'testimony" of scripture.
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining your beliefs. 🙂 I have learned a lot about your faith from this post and other posts of yours.
 
bengal_fan said:
i do read them. i do give them weight, but i don’t see them as inspired writings. i think there is much to learn in these books but as there is disagreement even among the Jewish people of Jesus’ day whether these books truly belonged in the canon, i would say we should respect that doubt and doubt ourselves. but i do think they are important books and have a spiritual value to them.
Click to expand...
But the Jews also doubted Jesus and the New Testament?

Protestant who is on the way to a Catholic life,
Jamie
 
Publisher said:
I do not view scripture…or tradition…as inerrant or infallible. Everything we “know” about the Eternal comes through our own experiences. If I were overly concerned about “doctrine” and “dogma” I would definitely have issue…but scripture is not, nor inteneded to be a “play by play” rule book, it seeks to convey man’s experience with the Light…it is imperfect and if "conflicts’ occur between the “non-canonical” and the “canonical” it is simply man’s finite understanding seeking to find adequate words to convey the Eternal.

One of the reasons Friend’s worship is “silent” is that God is to be experienced as a Real Presence in our midst…the scriptures themselves testify that a time will come when God’s word is not to be contained on written paper or stone, but to be written on the human heart…we are now in that time…God’s word calls us to make this a better world…to live in peace…to follow the Gallilean’s footsteps in bringing God into “incarnation” into our world by participating in his 'incarnation."

Truth with a capital “T” is beyond our words to explain…“Eyes have not seen nor ears heard…”…“now we see through a glass darkly…but then face to face we will know…”…“I heard a voice like the sound of many waters…no man could speak of the things…”

While most Friends view the scriptures very seriously, we understand it’s limitations…“He is present among his people to teach them himself…” “You tell me what the apostles say, you tell me what the prophets say…but what can you say?” are some quotes from George Fox as he was asked about scripture and challenged on their meanings.

Friends see true “religion” not being reduced to “doctrine” and “dogma” but being lived out in our humaness with the “proof” of how “true” something is by how we treat others and love sacrificially as Jesus showed us how to live as understood through the 'testimony" of scripture.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. So there is no absolute truth and Jesus is not a “savior” but a teacher who shows us how to love.

Absolutely FASCINATNG. I thank you for your careful explanations of these beliefs.

Now, would your experience – or rather the the present understanding of Friends’ spirituality as you describe it here – be a developed expression of belief or is this the foundational principle of the movement?

Can you give this ignoramus a timeline showing the articulation of the fundamental points of understanding and practice?
 
Publisher said:
I do not view scripture…or tradition…as inerrant or infallible. Everything we “know” about the Eternal comes through our own experiences.
Click to expand...
This is all quite interesting. I think you can see few of us are familiar with this faith. I ask you for patience with my questions. Feel free to answer or skip any, I won’t make any assumptions if you do.
  • When you say we “know” the Eternal yet express little concern for “doctrine”, what is there to “know”?? Are there “truths”?
  • Can people’s inner Light reveal conflicting data about the Eternal? And is that okay?
  • Is there a belief in the afterlife?
  • Is it possible to identify anyone astray in their faith since it is based on everything coming from the individual?
  • If scriptures are unreliable due to man’s fallacy, how does man “know” the Eternal in any way that comes from himself?
  • You cited the “incarnation.” Much gnosticism denies an incarnation as I understand. So when “scriptures” do conflict due to man’s fallibility, why choose one over the other?
🙂
 
MarcoPolo said:
This is all quite interesting. I think you can see few of us are familiar with this faith. I ask you for patience with my questions. Feel free to answer or skip any, I won’t make any assumptions if you do.
  • When you say we “know” the Eternal yet express little concern for “doctrine”, what is there to “know”?? Are there “truths”?
**Yes there are “truths”, and these truths are lived out in this life…how one lives in this life and how one serves others and seeks to make this a better world and share with others a “cup of water” or “visit the lonely and those in prison” or “feed the hungry” and “love one another” IS the proof. We seek to live our lives in such a way that we are “transformed by the renewing of our minds”…“to have this mind that was in Christ”…“it is not I that live but Christ that lives within me…”…these are the “truths” that make a difference. Affirming a set of dogmas and doctrines do not change a person.

One of the beliefs Friends hold is that “outward forms” do not “save”…one can enter the waters of baptism a dry hateful, spiteful person and come out a wet hateful, spiteful person…but the transforming Light of the Holy Spirit that “baptizes” us is the “true baptism”…no one can remain the same when God becomes part of their lives.**
  • Can people’s inner Light reveal conflicting data about the Eternal? And is that okay?
"Conflicting data"…finite words seekiing to define the Infinite? Yes…they conflict and often do…we are such willful creatures…but the things that should not conflict is how we treat one another…how we bear one another’s burdens…“love one another as I have loved you.”…“facts” clothed in finite words concerning the Infinite have little meaning when those “facts” do not change lives.
  • Is there a belief in the afterlife?
Many Friends do believe in an afterlife…but our life purpose is in the here and now…the “here after” will take care of itself…we are in Good Hands…but our focus in in this life…this is what is important…this life is where “eternity”…“eternal life” begins.
  • Is it possible to identify anyone astray in their faith since it is based on everything coming from the individual?
**Friends do have a disipline…we are a group…we are not in this alone…it’s not “everything goes”…instead of a “creed” we have "queries
"…

Are our meetings for worship held in stilled, expectant waiting upon God?

As we worship is there a living silence in which we are drawn together by the power of God in our midst?

Is the spirit of our worship together one that nurtures all worshipers?

To what degree some Friends find themselves outside the “will of the Meeting” is based on how many of the “queries” are answered by the Meeting and by the individual.**
  • If scriptures are unreliable due to man’s fallacy, how does man “know” the Eternal in any way that comes from himself?
**Friends beliefs about scripture vary…Robert Barclay, the first to systematically outline Friends beliefs wrote…

Nevertheless, because the scriptures are only a declaration of the source, and not the source itself, they are not to be considered the principal foundation of all truth and knowledge. They are not even to be considered as the adequate primary rule of all faith and practice. Yet, because they give a true and faithful testimony of the source itself, they are and may be regarded as a secondary rule that is subordinate to the Spirit, from which they obtain all their excellence and certainty. We truly know them only by the inward testimony of the Spirit or, as the scriptures themselves say, the Spirit is the guide by which the faithful are led into all Truth (John 16:13). Therefore, according to the scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader (Rom 8:14). Because we are receptive to the scriptures, as the product of the Spirit, it is for that very reason that the Spirit is the primary and principal rule of faith.**
Click to expand...
 
*]You cited the “incarnation.” Much gnosticism denies an incarnation as I understand. So when “scriptures” do conflict due to man’s fallibility, why choose one over the other?

**Isacc Pennington, William Penn and George Fox all spoke to where we go to seek guidence…

The end of words (even of Christ’s own directions in the days of His flesh) is to turn men to the holy life and power from whence the words came. Isaac Pennington

There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever they become brethren in the best sense of the expression. William Penn

You will say Christ saith this, and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God? George Fox**

Friends traditionally have shrunk away from “defining” what one must believe…every belief one holds must reflect in each life with any degree of meaning. Holding to a belief in the “incarnation” does no one any good if the Christ Within is not “incarnated” in the life that holds that belief. If our beliefs do not make us kinder, gentler, more loving…more giving to service of others…they hold little value.

“Salvation” is the work of God within us…for many Friends…I’d say most Friends…they look to Christ…but if God truly is within each of us…“that of God”…the “LIght Within” as a component of each individual…then even the minority voice among us must be heard as they may be speaking out of that Center of Light and Truth…it is the life they live that gives that evidence.

🙂
 
Publisher, you are SO kind and patient with us. Many thanks for your careful replies to what you must see as our truly ignorant questions.

Catholics come from a faith and reason perspective, and believe that our capacity of reason is given us as a gift by which we may come to know the Truth (which we believe) to a very high degree.

Your world is a very different place! I do appreciate your sharing your views with us – although we have wandered pretty from from the original topic of this thread!
 
mercygate said:
Fascinating. So there is no absolute truth and Jesus is not a “savior” but a teacher who shows us how to love.

Yes there is “absolute truth”…but we as finite humans have a very small grasp of the Absolute. For many Friends Jesus is a “savior”…by following him as the fullest expression of the Light…the Light of Christ…we are brought into relationship with God…but that is lived out in a very real way. Christ is a Present Teacher who does show us how to live. Many claim “Jesus as savior”, but saved from what? For me, I was “saved” from myself, my fear, my addictions, my own sense of alienation…I now “know” to Whom I belong, and I experience the Presence…I echo George Fox’s experience…"When all my hopes in men had failed…when my despair sought to overtake me…Oh then I heard a voice which said…“There is One, even Christ Jesus that can speak to thy condition”, and my heart did leap for joy!"

Absolutely FASCINATNG. I thank you for your careful explanations of these beliefs.

Now, would your experience – or rather the the present understanding of Friends’ spirituality as you describe it here – be a developed expression of belief or is this the foundational principle of the movement?

The Light Within is the “foundational priciple” of all religion. If you want to read a good book on Friend’s spirituality, I’d get “Testament of Devotion” by Raymond Kelly…it is my favorite book and was instrumental in my ‘convincement’.

Can you give this ignoramus a timeline showing the articulation of the fundamental points of understanding and practice?
Click to expand...
Friends organized as a group in the 16th/17th century in England under the ministry of young George Fox. Late on the Christian scene, but many Friends see their beliefs reflected in many of the great mystics of the past.

Friends came to America in the midst of religious persecution with the founding of Pennsylvania…Friends who came prior to that had a hard time of it…I believe Roger Williams offered sanctuary in Rhode Island and one of the first colonies to offer religious toleration…there are decent books on Friends history, but if you’re looking to see where Friends fall in relation to “apostolic authority”…you’ll find us outside of such beliefs.
 
Thank you Publisher, this has been most enlightening. Your charity prevents me from further questioning where I fail to see what you assert.

But one more question…I know you said you are not concerned with doctrines, but are you concerned that such a tiny fraction of humanity has embraced this true faith??
 
MarcoPolo said:
Thank you Publisher, this has been most enlightening. Your charity prevents me from further questioning where I fail to see what you assert.

But one more question…I know you said you are not concerned with doctrines, but are you concerned that such a tiny fraction of humanity has embraced this true faith??
Click to expand...
God is at work in each and every one of us…this “tiny fraction of humanity” called Friends is part of a much greater group…humanity…“true faith” by which if you mean “true doctrine”…I find myself outside that definition…I may not have the clarity of dogma and certainty of doctrine many claim to have from other religious traditions…but I have found a “faith” that satisfies my deepest longings…in a very real way I too heard a voice which said to me…“There is One, even Christ Jesus that can speak to thy condition…and my heart did leap for joy.”
 
MarcoPolo said:
By true faith I meant are you concerned more people aren’t of the Society of Friends?
Click to expand...
No not really, for me the Society of Friends is what Christianity should be…for those who have found reasons for belonging to other faith traditions, I honor their choice and hope they have also found that “there is One, even Christ Jesus that can speak to their condition.”
 
This is one of my favorite subjects, and I get into some of the Protestant objections to the ‘Deuterocanonicals’ in the following entry on my blog:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=125682309&blogID=240765838

Interestingly, just last week I finally got my hands on Gary Michuta’s Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, and he deals with every single objection I touched, plus dozens more. I highly recommend that book!

Anyway, I think the better question to ask is how Protestants, especially Bible-only sorts, determine what is and is not in the canon. It seems to me that you need an authority to establish what books are canonical and which are not. As I have written previously, when I started pondering this subject, it hit me that Jesus did not just hand people the Bible, rather he established a Church (and that realization which led me to the fork between Orthodoxy and Catholicism where I now stand).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top