H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
True. We all agree that these 66 books are inspired, there’s the consensus.
The RC, EOs, different OOs each have a unique canon, there’s no consensus.
I am happy to accept the consensus.
- Status
The RC, EOs, different OOs each have a unique canon, there’s no consensus.
I am happy to accept the consensus.
D
dronald
Guest
But don’t all of the Orthodox Church’s accept the books that the Catholic Church does? Why don’t we accept them if there’s a consensus on all of them?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
M
marywarfield
Guest
When the Canon was formalized circa 430 AD
it was so done depending on which newly (last couple
hundred years) gospels, letters and documents
most closely aligned with Tradition prior to
their writing. Therefore the argument of tradition vs
scripture is a red herring at best simply because
Tradituon is the basis of the scripture itself. So
to deny the importance of tradition is to
deny the foundations of the writing which leaves
a person ultimately chasing his tail.
Here is an example from the Mormon thread:
The Church has always baptized in various ways
depending on what was available. The Mormons on
the other hand claim the Church apostate by not
performing immersion baptism. However the Church
baptized based on three things: tradition, Scripture,
and reality. Reality says the River Jordan is a shallow
muddy thing and that water was seriously conserved and
in short supply in the desert. The likelihood that
Jesus or anyone else was baptized by full immersion
in such a precios and scarce commodity is poor. Secondly
nowhere in scripture does it state Jesus was fully immersed.
Third, the comparatively recent find of the Didache circa
50 AD (before the Mormon claim of Church apostasy)
defines baptism thusly: to be immersed in living water, if
available, to be sprinkled if available, and to use
cold still water if living (not running water) is not
available. In other words use what you can get.
However Mormonism with its roots in the Americas
filled with massive rivers lakes and streams decided
the Church was apostate for not participating
in full immersion!
For any aspect of Christianity tradition, scripture,
reason, reality snd faith must be utilized TOGETHER
or we all end up looking as silly as Joseph Smith.
it was so done depending on which newly (last couple
hundred years) gospels, letters and documents
most closely aligned with Tradition prior to
their writing. Therefore the argument of tradition vs
scripture is a red herring at best simply because
Tradituon is the basis of the scripture itself. So
to deny the importance of tradition is to
deny the foundations of the writing which leaves
a person ultimately chasing his tail.
Here is an example from the Mormon thread:
The Church has always baptized in various ways
depending on what was available. The Mormons on
the other hand claim the Church apostate by not
performing immersion baptism. However the Church
baptized based on three things: tradition, Scripture,
and reality. Reality says the River Jordan is a shallow
muddy thing and that water was seriously conserved and
in short supply in the desert. The likelihood that
Jesus or anyone else was baptized by full immersion
in such a precios and scarce commodity is poor. Secondly
nowhere in scripture does it state Jesus was fully immersed.
Third, the comparatively recent find of the Didache circa
50 AD (before the Mormon claim of Church apostasy)
defines baptism thusly: to be immersed in living water, if
available, to be sprinkled if available, and to use
cold still water if living (not running water) is not
available. In other words use what you can get.
However Mormonism with its roots in the Americas
filled with massive rivers lakes and streams decided
the Church was apostate for not participating
in full immersion!
For any aspect of Christianity tradition, scripture,
reason, reality snd faith must be utilized TOGETHER
or we all end up looking as silly as Joseph Smith.
This is precisely what the rather conservative Lutheran approach regarding the books is. It is a willingness to look at the position of many of the Fathers of the early Church, and take into account there views, including those who disputed certain books. Contrary to what some believe, Lutherans actually deeply consider the opinions of the early Church regarding the canon. Historically, even the Lutheran view of the Deuterocanon is one of high regard, used in liturgy and hymnody.
Jon
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Sure. When I die and get to heaven, if I were to learn I was wrong the whole time and the EO had the correct canon, it’s not like I am going to be all disgruntled about it.
I really don’t think its that big of an issue. At least not a hill to die on so to speak. My preferred bible the NRSV CE has them, and I read from it often.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
No, the EO don’t have a formally defined canon as the RC does.
The EO traditionally IIRC has ALL the books of the Septuagint, while the RC has removed a few like 3 and 4 Maccabees.
I think this is the well-catechized Lutheran view. I can’t imagine any Lutheran thinking the canon would be a stumbling block for unity.
I am reading the DC books, currently in 1 Macc. Some wonderful things that I will return to again and again.
Jon
D
dronald
Guest
Although they have not formally recognized every Deuterocanonical book don’t they generally use every single book the CC uses plus some extras?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I am not in a denomination, I am Catholic Est 33AD, denominations are those who are not in communion with us.
There is a consensus on the Catholic Canon, the Orthodox have more books and you have less books than any. To say there is not a consensus is to ignore this fact.
The fact that you are insinuating me backing out just proves my point… I didn’t say I’m backing out, I said I’d be back when we can have a serious discussion.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Dronale is not talking about a closed Orthodox canon, he is talking about the consensus you are ignoring. Yes they accept the books we have. Therefore, there is a consensus.
B
benjohnson
Guest
I always find it amusing that it’s Catholics and Lutherans who wind up arguing about this - when for us Lutherans, it’s only an English speaking Lutheran problem and we’d probably happily use the full Luther bible anyways without much prodding.
Heck… we made one of the best selling study books about the Deuterocanonicals / Apochrapha in the world, so it’s not like it will take us much convincing.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Indeed. My preferred bible has them in there. I especially like Sirach.
And even if I were somehow convinced they were canonical, it wouldn’t affect my faith at all. There’s nothing in there particularly damning to any confessional Lutheran teaching.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
But we are not talking about liking the DC’s but whether or not there is a consensus
E
eddie_too
Guest
for catholics, the sacred scriptures are authoratative.
however, saying the sacred scriptures are authoratative begs the question, actually two questions.
first, whose interpretation of sacred scriptures is rightly considered authoratative? that is for all of those who do not deny reality and claim that the sacred scriptures interpret themselves.
second, when there is disagreement among Christ’s followers as to the meaning of sacred scripture, how should that be resolved?
however, saying the sacred scriptures are authoratative begs the question, actually two questions.
first, whose interpretation of sacred scriptures is rightly considered authoratative? that is for all of those who do not deny reality and claim that the sacred scriptures interpret themselves.
second, when there is disagreement among Christ’s followers as to the meaning of sacred scripture, how should that be resolved?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Which completely proves my point why SS is bogus and a novelty. God spoke to His people before anything was written;hence the Word of God is not binded to written words alone. Likewise, your belief the written Word of God is the highest authority is a contradiction to your above statement. God does not need to transmit His word via written words only.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Agreed. But … He does speak though Scripture. I find arguments on why we shouldn’t hold His word as ultimately convincing rather hard to understand.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
I disagree and the main problem with not holding scripture as the highest authority, is that the person must declare all those doctrines that are infallible that aren’t contained in the scriptures, and how we know.
Back in the day one could just go ask an apostle or a prophet.
Can you show us all the practices and doctrines of the first century church that are infallible on not contained in scripture?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
The entire New Testament to start with. For that which is written about inevitably comes after that which is being written about.
- Status