The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John1968,

I’d like to know, regarding your statement on the Pope Steven, the first Pope… Have you ever heard of Pope St. Clement of Rome (circa 96AD) and Pope St. Victor (180’s AD)? Don’t you feel that these two bishops of Rome “exerted Papal authority”?
 
john1968,

You place a GREAT deal of weight on the opinion of the Jews regarding the OT canon that is used by Protestants today.

You DO realize, don’t you, that the Jews made the biggest mistake of all: they rejected God’s son and demanded he be killed.

I think you might want to reconsider relying on a “group”, back then, who you allege is the “authority” the “proper” OT canon, and yet they “blew” the entire redemption/salvation episode . . . :rolleyes:
 
John1968,

I understand that these are how you see things.

I would like to point out some other Scriptures that I personally didn’t focus on when I was a Protestant.

“The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.” (St. Matthew 23: 2-3) (drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=23&l=2&f=s#x)

-------------------this pasage speaks about the authority of the Jews

------------------the Parable of the Vineyard shows how this was transferred to the Church

"Whom when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: This is the heir, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. [15] So casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them?

[16] He will come, and will destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others." (St. Luke 20: 14-16) (drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=20&l=9&f=s#x)

---------------the authority of “the others” i.e. the Church (we Catholics further argue that He set one of them apart to be a visible source of unity)

"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

[16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (St. Matthew 18: 16-18) (drbo.org/chapter/47018.htm)

*St. Matthew 16:18-19 which we disagree on, nevertheless St. peter is given the keys and the authority to “bind and loose” before the rest of the Apostles-- as you may know “bind and loose” was rabbinical talk for “permit and forbid”

“…Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (St. John 20: 21-23) (drbo.org/chapter/50020.htm)

So, far from being a “Sola Scriptura” advocate, I see Jesus recognizing the existing Jewish authority (which He set up), telling a parable how that authority would be transferred to “others”, and then setting up that authority in the Gospels. This authority is not just a Book. That is not to say that Scripture is not authoritative nor can it be correctly used to refute man made traditions as Jesus showed.

As someome else has pointed out, you seem to look to the authority of those who had the authority taken away from them and given to “others” in order to determine what is the Old Testament. As far as I know, there was no set Canon in Palestine as someone else pointed out. It is my opinion that the Catholic position allows for this transfer of authority to happen more “smoothly” (for lack of a better term) as there is not a 400 year gap between the alleged last Book of the OT and the first Book of the NT.
 
john1968,

P.S. - Protestants will argue (at least the ones I have debated) until they are blue in the face that Moses was the definitive author of the entire Pentatuech.

If YOU take this position, would you care to explain how, exactly, Moses managed to write the part of the Pentateuch that included his own death and what happened after?

AND, even if you accept that Moses wrote ONE book, or only PART of a book of the Pentateuch, then you are ACKNOWLEDGING that “sacred tradition” was used LONG before any books of the Bible were written - OT and NT.

How? Because an awful lot of people lived and died before Moses (if he WAS the author of anything) wrote one thing. Now how did the stories told in the Pentatuech get passed down to Moses?
 
john1968,

Are you saying that according to the writings of the ECF’s, tradition played no role whatsoever in the interpretation of Scripture–and that the ECF’s were pro Sola Scriptura and anti tradition?

Anna
John,

Please don’t get upset, because I am responding to each section of your post. This is how things are done on forums.
I am not saying that the Early Church Fathers had no traditions. At this point I am trying to defend my position as to why I believe in Sola Scriptura.
O.K. So, you do not dispute the fact that the ECF’s did rely, to some extent, upon tradition in the interpretation of Scripture? Is that a correct understanding of your position? This requires simply a “yes” or “no” answer.
Originally the earliest Early Church Fathers, known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers, did not have any traditions, because the church was too young.
If they relied upon the writings that came to be part of the N.T. Canon, then your statement is false. Back in post #44 Curious Hobbit posted a list of Scriptures that demonstrate the importance and value of “tradition.” Since this is in the N.T., your argument that the ECF’s did not have any traditions in the beginning does not hold.

Curious Hobbit listed quotes from ECF’s in Post #45 also. In fact many people have posted similar things in response to your claims.
I made a thread in the “non catholic religion” section on Tradition being a necessary part of Christianity. Many verses have already been posted to show that tradition is a source of Christian truth. Here they are again,

2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

1 Cor 11: 2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

John 20: 30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.

2 Timothy 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

2 Thes 3: 6
We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

John 21: 25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2 John 1: 12
Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.

3 John 1: 13
Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face
But as time went by they did adopt traditions. I’m not saying that this was a good thing, but just that it happened.
So, you admit the ECF’s did rely upon tradition in addition to Scripture? This contradicts a claim that the ECF’s were Sola Scriptura proponents.
But if you look at OT history the children of Israel originally had no traditions either. But over time they did develop traditions.
Jewish history and tradition, including the O.T., were passed down first through oral tradition and were written much later. Some Scholars believe the TORAH was not written, until the Jews were in exile in Babylon. I will leave that to the scholars to debate. My point is that Scripture began as oral tradition.
Yet if you look at the Gospels Jesus condemns their traditions. He says they are man made and that they were teaching their traditions as if their traditions were the word of God.
Jesus condemned traditions that were not of God. He did not condemn any and all traditions.
I’m not saying that the ECF didn’t develop traditions. I’m just saying that traditions are not always a good thing. Especially if those traditions are put on par with scripture. And if those traditions contradict scripture.
Again, you acknowledge that the ECF’s had traditions. What you are missing is that oral tradition was “Scripture” before “Scripture” was ever written.
Even modern day Protestants and Evangelicals have traditions. Protestantism has been around for centuries, and it too has developed many traditions. But often times those traditions are really a bad thing that hinder the truths of God’s word.
I agree.
Usually, from what we can see in the Bible and in history, traditions are not always a good thing. And are often a bad thing.
Sometimes traditions are a bad thing, especially when they ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity.
Stick with the original teachings of the Apostles. And try to get away from traditions. If this was not the case then Jesus would not have condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his day. Yet Jesus did condemn their traditions, while upholding scripture.
The original teachings of the Apostles were oral traditions handed down to eventually find a place on the written page. Jesus did not condemn all traditions.

Peace,
Anna
 
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. But Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. The OT in Palestine never accepted the Deuterocanonical books. They were accepted among the Greek speaking Jews of the diaspora, but not by the Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Jews of Palestine. The authors of the NT quoted the Septuagint, simply because they were writing in Greek and that was the copy of the OT scriptures in Greek at that time in history. But if you pay close attention, Jesus never quotes from the Deuterocanonical books.

Yes, many early Christians used and accepted the Septuagint and the Deuterocanonical books, but there is no proof that Jesus or any Jews in Palestine ever accepted the Deuterocanonical books. In fact there is proof that they didn’t accept the Deuterocanonical books. The authors of the NT may have quoted from the Septuagint, but that doesn’t mean they accepted the Deuterocanonical parts of the Septuagint. And the Septuagint is a Greek translation that was made before the Deuterocanonical books were even written. Yet in the diaspora the Deuterocanonical books were added to the Septuagint because they were written in Greek. While in Palestine they were rejected because they were written in Greek. Do you follow me?

The criteria was kind of obvious, since it was obvious to Peter that Paul’s letters were scripture. Peter’s letters were scripture as well, because they met the same criteria as did Paul’s letters.

It seems that you are trying to argue that the church determined what the books of the Bible are to be, so the Church also gets to determine how to interpret them, and also gets to add tradition into an even par with scripture.

Finally, as I have stressed before, Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees and Saducees, and he used scripture to do it. So what makes you think that he would accept the traditions of the church?
John, you assume that Jesus could only speak Aramaic and Hebrew, however, He may have used Greek at times. They is no proof one way or the other, however, there were many Jews in Jerusalem at various times that spoke Greek from the diaspora. There were many Romans. When he conversed with the centurion did Jesus use Aramaic or Greek? Jesus quoted the Septuagint. The early Church wrote and spoke Greek because Koine means common. It was the common language. That was why the the Septuagint was also commonly used by the Church.

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.

Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

Wis 2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.
Wis 2:13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.
Wis 2:14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
Wis 2:15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.
Wis 2:16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
Wis 2:17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
Wis 2:18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
Wis 2:19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.
Wis 2:20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Wis 2:21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,
Wis 2:22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls;
Wis 2:23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity,
Wis 2:24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

Protestants lost a lot in omitting that passage.

catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

Isa 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
 
Roman_Catholic

I never said that the council of Jamnia was special. From what you write you make it seem as if I did. I said that there was an accepted canon in the time of Jesus. Obviously the book of Isaiah was read in the Syangogues and thought to be inspired. It was considered “scripture”. So was the book of Daniel, and other books quoted by Jesus. In the OT prophets and other writings refer to the Law of Moses as being from God. That means it was OT books authenticating other OT books as being scripture.

The OT canon in the time of Jesus was determined by the same method as the NT before the time of the councils in the 4th century. By the author, usage, and theology of the book in question. The 3 rules I wrote down are the rules that the councils used when they made their final decision. But these rules weren’t just invented in the 4th century out of nothing. Certain congregations, and bishops, etc…had their own list of books…they usually agreed on about 20 of the books, and then there were some books in question…where it varied on the place and time as to whether they were agreed upon or not.

Obviously you didn’t read all I wrote. I explained how the canons of Jesus time were divided up. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah itself. The Pharisees accepted the books of the modern day Jewish canon. And the Greek Jews of the diaspora accepted the Septuagint, which by the 2nd century had added additional books written in Greek, which the Jews of Palestine refused to entered into their canon because they were written in Greek.

The OT of Jesus time in Palestine was the current Jewish canon. It appears rather obvious from the Gospels. Jesus denounced the Sadducees because they denied the resurrection…and the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and man made traditions. But he always quoted scripture. There must have been some kind of canon around if Jesus knew which books were in it and the synagogues knew which books to read from.

My argument is that in the same way the Church, before the councils of the 4th century also had a canon. It may have not had full agreement across the board in every single church, but it was there. And 27 books of the modern day New Testament reflects the teachings of the Apostles and the first century church. That is the faith that Protestants want to imitate. Protestants want to get away from the man made traditions of the church which have over time come to be taught as if they were from God. It’s funny that the same exact thing happened in Jesus’ day. Jesus accepted the canon of the Pharisees, but he denounced their man made traditions.

I don’t know why you are making such an issue of the Council of Jamnia (I had forgotten the name of the town it was held in - thanks). Many scholars think that this council never existed. I’ve had Jews tell me that it is a pious fiction and never happened. But even if it did, the only thing this supposed council decided is to approve the canon that the Jews of Palestine were using, and to deny the Deuterocanonical books which had been added to the Septuagint canon over time. (I don’t know if you read this part or not, but I did mention how the original Septuagint was translated before the Deuterocanonical books were even written - and that those books were added later because they were written in Greek and were popular among the diaspora Jews).

My point is not to even make an issue of the council of Jamnia. I don’t know why you brought it up. My point is to indicate that in the time of Jesus there was an accepted canon among most conservative Jews of Palestine which Jesus accepted. Just like there was a generally accepted canon among most conservative Christians in during the time of the Ante-Nicene fathers. Therefore this whole idea that the Church created the NT is a bunch of bunk. God created the NT. People may have had some disagreements on it, but for the most part they knew what it was.

So I really don’t want to hear or read from you guys how the church created the Bible in the 4th century. Or that the Bible is a book that exclusively belongs to the RCC and no one else. just like the Sanhedrin didn’t create the canon of the OT, so the Church didn’t create the canon of the NT.

BTW, if the Septuagint is the correct collection of books from the OT, why doesn’t the RCC accept Esdras 3?
 
Roman_Catholic

Of course Jamnia would not use the Apostles as a standard…it was a Jewish council that had nothing to do with Christianity. I don’t get your point. I don’t even know why you mention this council.

I was talking about the councils of the 4th century, which so many Catholics seem to think created the NT.

The OT was determined already by the time of Jesus. Jamnia, if such a council even existed, only put a rubber stamp on what was already being used. But just like Jesus didn’t need that council to have his canon of the OT, so the Ante-Nicene fathers and the Protestants don’t need the councils of the 4th century to have their NT.
 
Roman_Catholic: You said: John this doesn’t work. In 2 Thess. 2:15 Paul tells the Thessalonians to stand firm in the traditions he had taught them:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us”

So if what you say above is true, how could Paul have had any traditions to teach them? No one is going to say that the Church was not young in Paul’s age, yet here we have traditions already in the Church.

When he writes traditions here he does not mean the same thing that the RCC has come to mean by the term tradition. At that time the entire New Testament had not been completely written yet. So much of the Gospel was by word of mouth. This word of mouth was the traditions. But once these traditions were written down they turned into the Gospels and the NT. At that point creating NEW traditions was adding to the word of God. Which the Bible repeatedly says not to do.

Before Genesis was written Abraham knew God without a book. He only had tradition to go by. But once Moses wrote the Torah…any other NEW traditions would have just been false additions to the word of God.

Why did Jesus condemn the traditions of the religious leaders of his time? Because they were adding to the word of God. They were man made traditions, which had been created since the OT was written, and which had nothing to do with God’s Law. Yet they taught them as if they were the word of God. Same thing happened in the RCC. You seem to ignore that Jesus condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time. Why do you do that?

Please tell me…Why did Jesus condemn the traditions of the religious leaders of his time? If traditions are such a fantastic thing, why did he condemn them?
 
Two of you wrote: Sometimes traditions are a bad thing, especially when they ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity.

So what you are saying is that over the first 1500 years of Christianity God told his people new things that the Apostles didn’t know…right? I mean the Apostles never knew of the Immaculate Conception. They never knew of papal infallibility. They never knew of Purgatory. They never knew of Indulgences. They never knew of auricular confession to a clergyman. The never knew of popes.

So all these additions to the faith since the time of Jesus and his Apostles came about by what? Was it some kind of continuous revelation? I had someone on this site tell me that the RCC doesn’t believe in Continuous Revelation…but that revelation stopped with the Apostles. If that is the case then where did all this new stuff come from? I was told on this website that the RCC believes that revelation ended with the Apostles, but that it only has been clarified over time. But these are new doctrines which never existed before. There wasn’t any clarification, but new additions altogether. Also, with time things tend to become less clear, not more clear. If I do something it’s fresh in my mind after one day, but after many years I tend to forget much of it in my memory. How can things be clarified over time?

Where did these new doctrines come from? Did God give visions to His people to tell them things they need to know for salvation that the Apostles didn’t know about? How did the Apostles get saved if they didn’t know this new stuff?

I’m so happy that you pointed out that: “Sometimes traditions are a bad thing, especially when they ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity.”

I guess you have to just keep piling on more and more superstition to make the faith clearer. I wonder what the faith will look like in another 1,000 years, if new doctrines keep being added that make the NT clearer.

Sorry to be sarcastic…I know what you meant when you made that statement…but it’s just nonsense. Protestant traditions are also a bad thing. But the Bible is not a bad thing. The New Testament contains the only real evidence for the faith as taught by the Apostles in the first century. All the other accumulated superstition that’s been added over the last 2000 years is just that, superstition.
 
Not Worthy… (I will use the terms Dueterocanonical and Apocrypha interchangably)

The Sadducees used the Torah. The Pharisees used the current books of the Jewish canon. And much, but not all, of the Greek speaking diaspora Jews, used the Septuagint, which had added the Dueterocanonical books to its canon sometime after the Jews of Palestine had closed the canon of their OT.

But Jesus didn’t live in the diaspora. Jesus didn’t have Greek as his main language. Jesus lived in Palestine and spoke mostly Aramaic and Hebrew, not Greek. There is no reason at all to think that the used the Septuagint. And there is absolutely no reason to think that he used the Dueterocanonical books, especially since he never quoted from them, and never referred to them.

Back then entire Bibles were expensive. Like the cost of an expensive car today. Or more like the price of a house. And many people were illiterate. If the Septuagint was used in some parts of Palestine by Greek speaking Jews, it probably wouldn’t be the entire OT, but just some particular books. People didn’t usually own the whole Bible. It was too expensive. People may have own some parts of the Bible, but not enough to have the entire Septuagint, including the Dueterocanonical books. So your point on the Apocrypha and the Septuagint is really meaningless.

The only reason you think that the Septuagint, along with the Dueterocanonical books, is the true OT canon, is because that’s the one the RCC has come to accept. Even Jerome wasn’t so sure of the Dueterocanonical books. He didn’t even include them with the rest of the OT books. He placed them between the OT and the NT, which is the same thing that Martin Luther did, and the same thing that the first Protestant Bibles did. Originally the KJV put the Apocrypha between the two testaments. It placed those books in a secondary level. Good for reading, but not quite scripture.

It’s funny that the RCC doesn’t include Esdras 3 in its Bible, even though that was part of the Septuagint Apocrypha. The Orthodox Church does…Please tell me why the RCC doesn’t, if the Septuagint is the true OT canon? Also there is Maccabees 3, and the Prayer of Manasseh. These Septuagint books are also not in the RCC Bible. Why not?

Jesus lived in Palestine and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. They didn’t use the Septuagint in Palestine. And the Jews of Palestine had rejected the Apocrypha because it was written in Greek. The diaspora Jews accepted the Apocrypha because the books were popular and because even though they were written in Greek, they didn’t have a problem with that.

Also because the Apocrypha was written AFTER the time that Palestinian Jews thought that revelation had ended. They believed that revelation ended with Malachi. So why add the Apocrypha to it?

So why would Jesus use the Septuagint, along with its Apocrypha? Why?
 
I suppose you can look at Peter’s statement in 2 Peter, which refers to Paul’s letter’s as scripture, as the indication that the New Testament canon must be a book associated with an Apostle, such as Paul, and that is also widely accepted and used among the Church communities, as were Paul’s letters. That’s the position that Paul’s letters had even in the first century. So Peter refers to them as scripture, setting the standard. So that’s how we know which books are to be in the NT canon. The NT even says it by refering to Paul’s Epistles as “scripture”.

Books associated with an Apostle
Books commonly used and accepted among the predominant number of Christian churches.

Paul’s letters all had this quality, so Peter calls them scripture. And so the Bible itself sets this standard.
Here is Peter’s quote in 2 Peter 3:
15 So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Note the highlighted section. Now we turn to Paul:
Col 4
16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the La-odice’ans; and see that you read also the letter from La-odice’a.
1 Cor 5
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;

Here are two indications that there are Pauline letters that are not in the canon. If I accept your premise of 2 Peter, does this mean that we are missing two pieces of Scripture?
 
Jesus lived in Palestine and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. They didn’t use the Septuagint in Palestine. And the Jews of Palestine had rejected the Apocrypha because it was written in Greek. The diaspora Jews accepted the Apocrypha because the books were popular and because even though they were written in Greek, they didn’t have a problem with that.
Interesting - that has implications for Mt 16:18-20!
 
Two of you wrote: Sometimes traditions are a bad thing, especially when they ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity.

So what you are saying is that over the first 1500 years of Christianity God told his people new things that the Apostles didn’t know…right? I mean the Apostles never knew of the Immaculate Conception. They never knew of papal infallibility. They never knew of Purgatory. They never knew of Indulgences. They never knew of auricular confession to a clergyman. The never knew of popes.
They also didn’t know of a Bible with a NT canon…
 
For all of you Septuagint backers. Who believe that the RCC OT canon is the correct canon of the OT, because it includes the Dueterocanonical/Apocrypha books. Please explain to me what the RCC does not include these books from the Septuagint Apocrypha?

I’m sorry, I kept saying Esdras 3. I guess it’s better known as Esdras 1.Actually it depends on which copy you look at. Some refer to Esdras I and 2 as Esdras 3 and 4.
  1. Esdras 1 (3)
  2. Esdras 2 (4)
  3. Maccabees 3
  4. Maccabees 4
  5. Prayer of Manasseh
  6. Psalm 151
These are all from the Septuagint Deuterocanonical list of the OT canon of books. If the Orthodox Church can accept them, why doesn’t the RCC accept them.

You like to mock Protestants because we completely reject the Deuterocanonical books, but the RCC got to pick and chose which Deuterocanonical books it accepted and which it didn’t accept when it comes to the Septuagint.

So don’t tell me that the Septuagint with it’s Deuterocanonical books is the true canon of the OT books, because the RCC threw out those it didn’t want.
 
cfrancis…

I must be misunderstanding you. Either that or you know absolutely nothing about history. Are you saying that for the first 1500 years there was no NT canon…Is that what you said?
 
cfrancis…

Yes there were things Paul wrote that didn’t get entered into the canon. If they were not entered there it was no doubt because God did not inspire them. Why didn’t they get entered? No doubt they were not preserved…but lost or throw away. Why would God allow this? Because he didn’t inspire such a book. Not every single stroke of Paul’s or Peter’s pen were inspired scripture from God. But if it was it would have been preserve.

I believe that the Apostles knew which of their writings were scripture and which were not. After all, God inspired the writings and he inspired the men. They knew what was going on.

To think that God did not inspire these men to know when their writings were scripture, but instead that God inspired the Church councils of the 4th century to make that determination is ridiculous. If he inspired the authors, he inspired the men. Not some council that came over 300 years later.
 
Two of you wrote: Sometimes traditions are a bad thing, especially when they ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity. . . . .
john1968,

Would you go back to my post #85, hit the “quote” button at the bottom right corner of the page, and answer my questions? This thread is not about the history of the Biblical Canon. It is about whether or not the ECF’s were Sola Scriptura proponents or if they used “tradition” in the interpretation of Scripture.

Anna
 
cfrancis…

You said that when I wrote:

“Jesus lived in Palestine and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. They didn’t use the Septuagint in Palestine. And the Jews of Palestine had rejected the Apocrypha because it was written in Greek. The diaspora Jews accepted the Apocrypha because the books were popular and because even though they were written in Greek, they didn’t have a problem with that.”

It created a problem with Matthew 16:18-20. What does that have anything to do with what I wrote?

Do you seriously think that Jesus was speaking to them in Greek?

That would be like a modern day Pole, living today in Poland, but speaking English to all his friends just because English is the most used language in the world right now. I’ve been to Poland…very few people speak English there. Especially if they’re speaking to their Polish friends. People speak the language that is native to them if they are speaking to their friends. Jesus and the Apostles were Galileans. Among themselves they spoke Aramaic.

Or are you referring to the supposed power of the pope? It’s funny that the first time any Bishop of Rome claimed any power because Peter had died in Rome was in 250 A.D., when Stephen did this, and most everyone in Christendom ignored him. When this happened Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage) said that even the Apostle Peter didn’t have the gall to claim such powers. If that was the case in 250 A.D., over 200 years after Jesus, then you have to admit that any claims to power by the Bishop of Rome today are just as invalid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top