M
mercygate
Guest
Actually – it is more often Anti-Catholics than non-Catholics who do this. But we still need to be ready to show them what we do believe. They really can’t help it that they’ve been fed so many untruths.
- Status
B
bbas_64
Guest
Good day, Mercygate
You do understand that this is just this one persons veiw, and may not conform to the veiws of his Church as a whole, he is welcomed to it IMO. I bet you or I could find some other person in his Church that would disagree with him. The Canon written by John of Damascus survives with in the pages of history.
You had asked that some one show you a cannon between the 5-16 th century that was differnet than that of Hippo and Trent, with in the pages of history one has been found, so to continue to say that one did not exist is to fail to be historicaly accurate. The question then becomes is why would some one continue to do such a thing?
Peace to u,
Bill
M
mercygate
Guest
bbas 64:
But your canon contains the deuterocanonical books and parallels the accepted canon of both East and West-- with the exception of that last addition. In these discussions about whether the Bible is Catholic, it is always the deuterocanonicals that are at issue, and there is no argument about that between East and West. Moreover, Protestants do not include the Canons of the Apostles either. Are you saying that the John Damascus canon should carry more weight? Does your Bible include the Canons of the Apostles? I’m just a little fuzzy about where you are going with this and about why you are so reluctant to explain why this canon should be given more authority – if that is what you are saying.
Since you were the one who brought it up, I hope you don’t mind my asking you to dredge up a little more background on this if your contention is that a 7th Century canon, based on a 4th century canon, somehow cancels out the claim that Scripture as we know it was a product of the early Church.
And while you’re at it, you mentioned earlier that this canon appeared “within his lifetime” – at this point you still haven’t said who that is — but perhaps that doesn’t matter at this point.
Continue to do what? Say the canon doesn’t exist? You produced a canon between Hippo and Trent. Thank you. It’s a bad day when I don’t learn something. I would like to knkow more about it. From what I understand the Apostolic Canons containing this list are the final chapter of the Apostolic Constitutions, which date from the late 4th Century. It is strange that the “Canon of the Apostles” cites itself in its canon of Scripture. (But I agree that my Orthodox priest’s reply was less than persuasive.)
But your canon contains the deuterocanonical books and parallels the accepted canon of both East and West-- with the exception of that last addition. In these discussions about whether the Bible is Catholic, it is always the deuterocanonicals that are at issue, and there is no argument about that between East and West. Moreover, Protestants do not include the Canons of the Apostles either. Are you saying that the John Damascus canon should carry more weight? Does your Bible include the Canons of the Apostles? I’m just a little fuzzy about where you are going with this and about why you are so reluctant to explain why this canon should be given more authority – if that is what you are saying.
Since you were the one who brought it up, I hope you don’t mind my asking you to dredge up a little more background on this if your contention is that a 7th Century canon, based on a 4th century canon, somehow cancels out the claim that Scripture as we know it was a product of the early Church.
And while you’re at it, you mentioned earlier that this canon appeared “within his lifetime” – at this point you still haven’t said who that is — but perhaps that doesn’t matter at this point.
M
mercygate
Guest
bbas 64:
Now that I have checked, I see this canon lacks four of the deuterocanonicals: Maccabees, Tobit, Judith & Baruch. Although I should have checked that when you first posted the John of Damascus canon, it would have been sporting of you to point out the differences, since this was your baby.
We should note that the Canons of the Apostles were accepted in the East but not the West. Yet, where does this canon fit into your case, and how is it that the Churches of the East today use the same canon as the West?
Again, I apologize for my earlier post this evening.
Sorry, Bill - ignore my earlier reference to your not having mentioned who it was whose canon was used in his lifetime, i.e., John of Damascus. I didn’t see your answer.
Now that I have checked, I see this canon lacks four of the deuterocanonicals: Maccabees, Tobit, Judith & Baruch. Although I should have checked that when you first posted the John of Damascus canon, it would have been sporting of you to point out the differences, since this was your baby.
We should note that the Canons of the Apostles were accepted in the East but not the West. Yet, where does this canon fit into your case, and how is it that the Churches of the East today use the same canon as the West?
Again, I apologize for my earlier post this evening.
M
Maccabees
Guest
The early african councils Hippo and Carthage were western councils and binding upon only the west. That canon was reflecitve of the witness of the favored tradition of the western church until it became codified at Florence and infalliable at Trent.
The eastern church had its own councils and slighly differnt traditions than the west. Remeber the west spoke Latin and the East spoke Greek thus unless a heresy was to be discussed. Other discussions of less dire importance divded between the east and west.
At Florence the catholic church attempted to demonstrate a common tradition of scripture with the Coptics they both agreed to the same OT and NT canon.
They were the only church outside of Catholicism to ever discuss the canon with the Catholic Church.
Other Orthodox churches have different canon traditions the Greeks essentially have the same canon with the addition of 3 Maccabees. some include the entire Septugient, some exlude some duterocanoicals. The thing with Orthodoxy is that they have had not had ecunemical council to settle the canon differences they prefer to be governed seperately with each church having their own canon they don’t have a patriarch with the authority of the Pope to declare something dogma for all the churches invloved as each patriarch is eqaul and does not have juridiction over other churches.
You will see far more diversity of opinion on the canon from the eastern fathers than the west becuase the African councils were of no influence in the west since it was not binding upon the east and after the schism each Orthodox church only answered to themselves thus creating the possibility of each church having a differnent canon tradition.
As for the catholic and protestant dispute catholics see it far more problematic as Luther and the other Reformers were western and would have been under the authority of the normative western canon.
THe stature of a different eastern canon was legitamately an open question since no ecunemical council concerning the canon occured with the east during their unified period. But as scene at the Council of Florence when the Coptics and Catholics agree to a common canon it could have worked out.
In the ecunemical dialoge with the 2 churces (Catholics-Orthodox) this issue hasn’t even brought up for two reasons they are far bigger issues on the table which seperate us and since each church regards tradition as inspired and are not of the sola scriptura mindset the books they disagree on are of little consequnce.
The eastern church had its own councils and slighly differnt traditions than the west. Remeber the west spoke Latin and the East spoke Greek thus unless a heresy was to be discussed. Other discussions of less dire importance divded between the east and west.
At Florence the catholic church attempted to demonstrate a common tradition of scripture with the Coptics they both agreed to the same OT and NT canon.
They were the only church outside of Catholicism to ever discuss the canon with the Catholic Church.
Other Orthodox churches have different canon traditions the Greeks essentially have the same canon with the addition of 3 Maccabees. some include the entire Septugient, some exlude some duterocanoicals. The thing with Orthodoxy is that they have had not had ecunemical council to settle the canon differences they prefer to be governed seperately with each church having their own canon they don’t have a patriarch with the authority of the Pope to declare something dogma for all the churches invloved as each patriarch is eqaul and does not have juridiction over other churches.
You will see far more diversity of opinion on the canon from the eastern fathers than the west becuase the African councils were of no influence in the west since it was not binding upon the east and after the schism each Orthodox church only answered to themselves thus creating the possibility of each church having a differnent canon tradition.
As for the catholic and protestant dispute catholics see it far more problematic as Luther and the other Reformers were western and would have been under the authority of the normative western canon.
THe stature of a different eastern canon was legitamately an open question since no ecunemical council concerning the canon occured with the east during their unified period. But as scene at the Council of Florence when the Coptics and Catholics agree to a common canon it could have worked out.
In the ecunemical dialoge with the 2 churces (Catholics-Orthodox) this issue hasn’t even brought up for two reasons they are far bigger issues on the table which seperate us and since each church regards tradition as inspired and are not of the sola scriptura mindset the books they disagree on are of little consequnce.
M
Maccabees
Guest
One could accept all the extra books of the Greek Septugient or reject all of them. It would matter little. If all the aposolic churches would acknowledge holy tradition that may be contained in these books such as praying for the dead. For example there is nothing dogmatic in 3 Maccabees that cannot be found in the other dueteros. The other disagreed septugient books contain nothing of theological importance that would affect the faith.
The main controversy in these books is the passage in 2 Maccabees that refers to prayers for the dead since all apostolic churches practice this tradition their is no controversy among the Orthodox or Catholics.
Obviously when a sect such as Protestants don’t accept this teaching (prayers for the dead) and deny 2 Maccabees as scripture the canon issue of the duteros becomes more important by necessity. But by far and away most Christian theology is derived form the NT primarily and then Jewish OT most of the dueteros are wisdom literature or poetry and parables little is of historical or theolgical importance. Except the books 1 and 2 Maccabees are the most important due the historical nature of the real battles of the diaspora jews.
THat being said they were of value of the early church as how to live a good Christian life they were far more accessible in how to live a life of Christian values (for a greek of roman christian) such as the Book of Sirach which was so popular it became known as the church book and the book of Wisdom a primer for Christian morality than many books of the the Torah which contianed many laws (ex Leviticus,Numbers, which have Jewish Geanolgies, Dietary laws, Jewsih traditions, etc) which would only aply to Jews and would be forreign to the gentile Christian unless he was a Bible scholar. Thus they remained popular for these reasons.
The main controversy in these books is the passage in 2 Maccabees that refers to prayers for the dead since all apostolic churches practice this tradition their is no controversy among the Orthodox or Catholics.
Obviously when a sect such as Protestants don’t accept this teaching (prayers for the dead) and deny 2 Maccabees as scripture the canon issue of the duteros becomes more important by necessity. But by far and away most Christian theology is derived form the NT primarily and then Jewish OT most of the dueteros are wisdom literature or poetry and parables little is of historical or theolgical importance. Except the books 1 and 2 Maccabees are the most important due the historical nature of the real battles of the diaspora jews.
THat being said they were of value of the early church as how to live a good Christian life they were far more accessible in how to live a life of Christian values (for a greek of roman christian) such as the Book of Sirach which was so popular it became known as the church book and the book of Wisdom a primer for Christian morality than many books of the the Torah which contianed many laws (ex Leviticus,Numbers, which have Jewish Geanolgies, Dietary laws, Jewsih traditions, etc) which would only aply to Jews and would be forreign to the gentile Christian unless he was a Bible scholar. Thus they remained popular for these reasons.
M
mercygate
Guest
Maccabees! WHERE have you been? Here I’ve been groping around (even with a fair amount of knowledge already in place) and pursuing this question haltingly – and there YOU are: ready with a clean, digestible, credible historical explanation of the issue. Nice job.
R
RBushlow
Guest
Then you believe that there is no evidence. So, what are you bringing to the discussion besides contention?
M
mercygate
Guest
M
mercygate
Guest
The Gospels you accept are the same Gospels we accept. How can you accept them if they are the product of a corrupt Church? If the Church which wrote and ratified the Scriptures was corrupt, then the Scriptures themselves are suspect, are they not?
You are right that we produce no evidence except that ‘provided’ by the Church. Since the canon of Scripture was a subject of absolutely no interest whatsoever to anybody but the Church, where could we look for independent sources? I submit that the burden to disprove the Church’s position as author and guard of Sacred Scripture lies with those who reject her authority.
The citation of authentic early Church sources, which actually exist, carries more objective credibility than the historic jump some Protestants make from The Acts of the Apostles to 1500 A.D., leaving out everything in between.
J
jimmy
Guest
So, you think the first bible was a King James bible?
I think that is amazing since the bible was created about 1200 years before King James.
J
jimmy
Guest
bbas 64:
bbas64, you give the opinion of one man in the seventh century. The canons of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were passed by several bishops maybe even hundreds. So we have the view of hundreds of bihsops and you have the view of one.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
A
Athanasiy
Guest
But, unfortunately it is not just the Catholic Document.
It is today, for many people- ‘’ Anti-Catholic Document’’
Its like the daughter, who beat up her mother , and says to her;
-You did not gave me birth .
-It was not You , who gave me the birth.
I can not understand only one thing.
Why the Bible is not Catholic Document for
many people today ?
Why the Bible is separated from the Catholic Church ?
It is today, for many people- ‘’ Anti-Catholic Document’’
Its like the daughter, who beat up her mother , and says to her;
-You did not gave me birth .
-It was not You , who gave me the birth.
I can not understand only one thing.
Why the Bible is not Catholic Document for
many people today ?
Why the Bible is separated from the Catholic Church ?
R
richardeekw
Guest
A
Athanasiy
Guest
Brother ! But its a Church.
You can’t call it the Sect or the Denomination. Right ?
The Catholic Church is the Church.
If we shall start to comment the Bible throughout ,( I mean if we shall see clearly the depths of the word of God) there will be not 30 000, but may be more then 100 000 Denominations.
Because the most learned among us,sooner or later are between dilemma.
In what to believe, in my own interpretation of the Scripture, or how my Denomination teaches the Scripture ?
We believe that ( by making this document)the Holly Spirit was the author.
We are Right.
But the Holy Spirit did it in the Church, through the Church, by the Church.
I think that our problem is that , our God is just the God of the Biblical Period.
We do not pay attention, what Holy Spirit was doing after the Biblical Period.
Therefore all other documents of the Catholic Church means nothing for us.
If we would consider that the Holy Spirit led the Church with the other documents too, only then we could see, that;
The Scripture should be seen only in the context of the Church.
Interpretation of the Scripture outside of the Church ( even those 66 Books which we split by ourselves) is the Interpretation of the Scripture out of the context.
- Status