Reasons why you are very unwise to trust your church’s doctrines

[Bro in Christ]

Perhaps you missed the several times when I explained:
Jesus's idea of overcoming is mucho differente than John's!

This is what Jesus requires re: overcoming ...

Revelation 3:
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne,
as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Now you can ask yourself, "What exactly did Jesus overcome?"
.

When did you become God?

John is talking about us... context , who written too ... literal

 

[OzSpen]

Ignatius,

What were the books of the Jewish Scriptures? Did they include the Apocrypha?

My copy of The Apocrypha (The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, New York: Oxford University Press, 1973, RSV) states in the Preface and Introduction that:

• 'They are not included in the Hebrew Canon of Holy Scripture' (1973:vii); 'none of these fifteen books is included in the Hebrew canon of holy Scripture. All of them, however, with the exception of 2 Esdras, are present in copies of the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. The Old Latin translations of the Old Testament, made from the Septuagint, also include them, along with 2 Esdras. As a consequence, many of the early Church Fathers quoted most of these books as authoritative' (1973:x);
• 'In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were nto always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part holy Scriptures' (1973:x);
• 'In 1546, the Council of Trent decreed that the Canon of the Old Testament includes them (except the Prayer of Manasseh and and 1 and 2 Esdras)' (1973:vii-viii);
• '"the Apocrypha" is the designation applied to a collection of fourteen or fifteen books, or portions of books, written during the last two centuries before Christ and the first century of the Christian era' (1973:ix);
• 'The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches' (1973:x);
• 'The introductory phrase, "Thus says the Lord," which occurs so frequently in the Old Testament, is conspicuous by its absence from the books of the Apocrypha' (1973:xii).
• 'In the fourth century many Greek Fathers (including Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, and Epiphanius) came to recognize a distinction between the books in the Hebrew canon and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited as Scripture' (1973:xiii).
• 'In the Latin Church, on the other hand, though opinion has not be unanimous, a generally high regard for the books of the Apocrypha has prevailed' (1973:xiii).
• 'At the close of the fourth century, Jerome spoke out decidedly for the Hebrew canon, declaring unreservedly that books which were outside that canon should be classed as apocryphal ' (1973:xiii).
• 'Disputes over the doctrines of Purgatory and of the efficacy of prayers and Masses for the dead inevitably involved discussion concerning the authority of 2 Maccabees, which contains what was held to be scriptural warrant for them (12:43-45' (1973:xiv).

The Apocrypha is dated in the Intertestamental period between the OT and the NT.

I do not have the time to reply to your points, point by point, as I'm in the final stages of completing a PhD dissertation (dissertation-only in British system), so am pressing deadlines.

Sorry that I don't have the time to reply in more detail to what you are stating about my views. The facts are that the Hebrew canon at the time of the NT writing did not include the Apocrypha.

Sincerely,
Oz

In context, he's referring to the Jewish scriptures with which Timothy had been taught from childhood. I'm not entirely sure just which books Timothy would have considered canonical, but I believe there's a good chance that the LXX including what came to be called "deuterocanonical books" were part of that corpus. We can't be 100% sure of the exact bounds of the canon of Scripture at the time this epistle was written. Clearly, Timothy was meant to infer from his own situation, just which Scriptures were being referred to.

If we take Paul's words in a categorical sense, that is, "All writings that are within the category of God-breathed Scripture," it's broad enough to include the entire canon of both the Old Testament (no definitive canon of which was formally adopted until the time of the Reformation) and the New Testament (the canon of which wasn't formally and universally accepted until about the 4th century).

Still, at the time this was written, I believe the best explanation is that Paul was referring to the Jewish (OT) scriptures, which were able to prepare him to receive and understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ by faith.

Notice what else he says in his letters, though. He tells Timothy of the kinds of people can be entrusted with the message that he (Paul) is passing on to them.

"21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. 22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." (2 Tim 2)

"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

This would seem to be his grandmother and mother, mentioned in Ch.1. The scriptures are sufficient, but they must be properly learned and understood. This is the task of teachers.

And, the entire context of both epistles to Timothy is basically Paul's instructions for how to identify and appoint faithful elders and deacons who can shepherd the churches and carry on the teaching and service begun by the apostles (in this case, at least, it's Paul himself).

As early as Ignatius of Antioch, we see a letter written to the church in Ephesus likely only a few generations after Timothy himself had been a bishop...admonishing his readers to continue in submission to their bishops, elders and deacons.

Clearly, the sufficiency of the Scriptures is not at odds with the authority of the Church's ordained ministry. It is the task of the entire Church, led by those ordained to that ministry through the laying on of hands, to safeguard the entire tradition received from the Apostles, within which the Scriptures can be properly understood and lived out.

I believe you've also sidestepped my entire line of questioning to you.

 

[heymikey80]

Perhaps you missed the several times when I explained:
Jesus's idea of overcoming is mucho differente than John's!

This is what Jesus requires re: overcoming ...

Revelation 3:
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne,
as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Now you can ask yourself, "What exactly did Jesus overcome?"
.

One thing I think it is awfully clear Jesus doesnt mean. He doesnt mean "overcome" to refer to us overcoming other Christians who also have the Spirit of God. That would be "a house divided against itself", wouldnt it?

We should expect just a bit higher concentration of the Spirit of God in the church; else God removes it.

It seems to me that is what the Spirit is saying.

 

[prodromos]

The facts are that the Hebrew canon at the time of the NT writing did not include the Apocrypha.

What makes you assume the early Christians were using the Hebrew canon, and that also begs the question "which Hebrew canon?" as there was more than one.

Almost all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament are lifted word for word from the Greek Septuagint. Timothy is a Greek, not Hebrew name.
Based on the textual evidence alone it seems far more likely that the Scriptures Timothy grew up with was in fact the Septuagint. I believe archeological evidence backs up that assumption.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you were asked before though. You seem to be avoiding giving a direct answer. Given your deadlines and workload I can fully appreciate your not being able to give priority to answering the questions asked of you.

 

[Ignatius21]

Ignatius,

What were the books of the Jewish Scriptures? Did they include the Apocrypha?

My copy of The Apocrypha (The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, New York: Oxford University Press, 1973, RSV) states in the Preface and Introduction that:

Oz, I'm puzzled by your replies and the direction this conversation is taking. How did we get off into a rabbit trail about when the "apocrypha" were written, and which Jews used them? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions I've been asking you, but those as-of-yet unanswered questions have everything to do with why I consider the EOC to be the true church, and why I've said that--while I cannot judge things I do not understand--I do not consider non-EO to be in communion with the Church of the Apostles.

What gives? Months ago, when we first engaged about the origins of Critical Realism and why you accept that tradition as normative for interpreting Scripture, you also stopped directly replying and cited your lack of time due to school. And that's totally OK. I've been through school, I have kids, I get what it's like to have very little time. Yet I see you continually active in this forum, providing some pretty in-depth replies on all manner of topics, with great insight and first-hand sources.

Forgive me, but I echo what Prodromos said above... it *seems* to us that you are avoiding engaging this particular issue: what is the source of the traditions by which you interpret Scripture?

Sorry that I don't have the time to reply in more detail to what you are stating about my views. The facts are that the Hebrew canon at the time of the NT writing did not include the Apocrypha.

Sincerely,
Oz

I cant' help but poke my nose down the bunny trail you've created. The list of things from your copy of the apocrypha demonstrates clearly that (a) there were different canons of the OT between the Hebrew-speaking and the Hellenic Jews, (b) that it was the latter that the Early Christians accepted as normative and authoritative.

1. Why do you assume that Timothy, a Greek-speaking Jew from the region of Ephesus, would have not "been taught from his youth" from the Greek translation and canon of the Jewish scriptures?

2. Why grant greater authority to the canonical tradition of the Hebrew-speaking Jews, than to the Greek-speaking?

3. Why grant greater authority to one particular Jewish tradition, than to the Christian tradition itself?

I'd appreciate clear answers to the above, in what little time you can spare. Oh, and one more, a simple yes/no.

*** Do you consider your canon, your methods of interpretation, and your philosophical outlook brought to the texts, to be traditions, or not?

 

[OzSpen]

Ignatius,

The reason I'm dealing with the Apocrypha is because it was you who stated in #53:

And yet, what defines even the boundaries of Scripture for you (as for all of us), is in fact, tradition. Whether or not you wish to call it such. This is no red herring. This is the very root of the issue.

Do you disagree?

I agreed and gave some evidence to demonstrate that the Apocrypha was written in the Intertestamental period and was not included in the Hebrew canon of Scripture.

Why are you so judgmental when I tell you that NOW I am pushing deadlines and do not have the time to respond to you in detail? I find your statement about me, 'Yet I see you continually active in this forum, providing some pretty in-depth replies on all manner of topics, with great insight and first-hand sources', to be an abominable accusation when I've told you that NOW I'm pressing deadlines and cannot respond in detail.

This will be my last response to you because of your attitude towards me.

Oz

Oz, I'm puzzled by your replies and the direction this conversation is taking. How did we get off into a rabbit trail about when the "apocrypha" were written, and which Jews used them? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions I've been asking you, but those as-of-yet unanswered questions have everything to do with why I consider the EOC to be the true church, and why I've said that--while I cannot judge things I do not understand--I do not consider non-EO to be in communion with the Church of the Apostles.

What gives? Months ago, when we first engaged about the origins of Critical Realism and why you accept that tradition as normative for interpreting Scripture, you also stopped directly replying and cited your lack of time due to school. And that's totally OK. I've been through school, I have kids, I get what it's like to have very little time. Yet I see you continually active in this forum, providing some pretty in-depth replies on all manner of topics, with great insight and first-hand sources.

Forgive me, but I echo what Prodromos said above... it *seems* to us that you are avoiding engaging this particular issue: what is the source of the traditions by which you interpret Scripture?



I cant' help but poke my nose down the bunny trail you've created. The list of things from your copy of the apocrypha demonstrates clearly that (a) there were different canons of the OT between the Hebrew-speaking and the Hellenic Jews, (b) that it was the latter that the Early Christians accepted as normative and authoritative.

1. Why do you assume that Timothy, a Greek-speaking Jew from the region of Ephesus, would have not "been taught from his youth" from the Greek translation and canon of the Jewish scriptures?

2. Why grant greater authority to the canonical tradition of the Hebrew-speaking Jews, than to the Greek-speaking?

3. Why grant greater authority to one particular Jewish tradition, than to the Christian tradition itself?

I'd appreciate clear answers to the above, in what little time you can spare. Oh, and one more, a simple yes/no.

*** Do you consider your canon, your methods of interpretation, and your philosophical outlook brought to the texts, to be traditions, or not?

 

[OzSpen]

What makes you assume the early Christians were using the Hebrew canon, and that also begs the question "which Hebrew canon?" as there was more than one.

Almost all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament are lifted word for word from the Greek Septuagint. Timothy is a Greek, not Hebrew name.
Based on the textual evidence alone it seems far more likely that the Scriptures Timothy grew up with was in fact the Septuagint. I believe archeological evidence backs up that assumption.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you were asked before though. You seem to be avoiding giving a direct answer. Given your deadlines and workload I can fully appreciate your not being able to give priority to answering the questions asked of you.

This doesn't alter the fact that the Apocrypha was from the last 2 centuries before the NT and was not included in the Hebrew canon. It was in the Greek LXX but not the Hebrew canon.

I have not been able to find any NT books that make a direct quotation from any of the 15 books of the Apocrypha although there are often citations from the 39 books of the Hebrew canon of the OT. There may be allusions to some apocryphal books in some NT writers (e.g. Romans 1:20-29 with Wis. 13:5.8; Rom 9:20-23 with Wis.12:12.20; 15:7; 2 Cor 5:1, 4 with Wis. 9:15)

Oz

 

[prodromos]

Why are you so judgmental when I tell you that NOW I am pushing deadlines and do not have the time to respond to you in detail? I find your statement about me, 'Yet I see you continually active in this forum, providing some pretty in-depth replies on all manner of topics, with great insight and first-hand sources', to be an abominable accusation when I've told you that NOW I'm pressing deadlines and cannot respond in detail.

Considering you made 34 posts over the previous 2 days, I suggest you might better serve your interests by logging off from Christian Forums until you have finished your work
We're all guilty of letting the forums take over control at times. Better to discipline ourselves than get angry when others point out our weaknesses.

Hopefully you won't actually read this until after your work is finished.

 

[prodromos]

This doesn't alter the fact that the Apocrypha was from the last 2 centuries before the NT and was not included in the Hebrew canon. It was in the Greek LXX but not the Hebrew canon.

We are not disputing what was or was not in the Hebrew canon. We are talking about what Timothy understood Paul to mean by "scripture", which would most probably been the Septuagint. Note that in the Eastern Church, the books you term "apocrypha" were simply "canon"

I have not been able to find any NT books that make a direct quotation from any of the 15 books of the Apocrypha although there are often citations from the 39 books of the Hebrew canon of the OT. There may be allusions to some apocryphal books in some NT writers (e.g. Romans 1:20-29 with Wis. 13:5.8; Rom 9:20-23 with Wis.12:12.20; 15:7; 2 Cor 5:1, 4 with Wis. 9:15)

Not all the books in the Hebrew canon are quoted in the New Testament either. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Note that when I say the Septuagint was quoted in the New Testament, I mean they were not quoting from the Hebrew text and translating to Greek. In many Old Testament quotes, the Hebrew is very different from the Greek and is clearly NOT taken from the Hebrew

 

[OzSpen]

We are not disputing what was or was not in the Hebrew canon. We are talking about what Timothy understood Paul to mean by "scripture", which would most probably been the Septuagint. Note that in the Eastern Church, the books you term "apocrypha" were simply "canon"

Not all the books in the Hebrew canon are quoted in the New Testament either. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Note that when I say the Septuagint was quoted in the New Testament, I mean they were not quoting from the Hebrew text and translating to Greek. In many Old Testament quotes, the Hebrew is very different from the Greek and is clearly NOT taken from the Hebrew

Paul was a Jew and it could be expected that he would communicate with his child in the faith, Timothy, what was in the Hebrew canon. It did not include the Intertestamental books of the Apocrypha

As of yesterday I was unsubscribed from all threads except this one.

With your encouragement and endorsement, I will now unsubscribe from this one, thus exiting CF until the dissertation is complete.

Otherwise, I'd debate you point for point - including the basis for my world and life view.

Bye, Oz

 

[prodromos]

God bless, and good luck with your dissertation.

 

[extraordinary]

.
“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that
no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:15)

The extreme example of this is …
the mafia killer who goes to mass every week, and dutifully confesses his sins to his priest.

Evidently, he has been raised to believe that this will get him into heaven!

Who’s fault is this? … It must be the church’s fault.

Being a murderer is one example of a sinning lifestyle that sends people to hell.

Rev 21:7-8 • “He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God
and he shall be My son.But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers,
sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the
lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Aren’t all of the other habitual sins just as deadly?

The other “sin lists” in the NT provide dozens more of these deadly sins,
which, if committed habitually (without sincere repentance obviously),
will guarantee hell for the practitioners.
.

 

[Ignatius21]

.
“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that
no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:15)

The extreme example of this is …
the mafia killer who goes to mass every week, and dutifully confesses his sins to his priest.

Evidently, he has been raised to believe that this will get him into heaven!

Who’s fault is this? … It must be the church’s fault.

Can you identify the council, Pope, or catechism who taught that a mafia killer can get to heaven by coming to Mass and confessing his sins but never stopping?

No offense, but your example is rather absurd.

Can a lone priest, preacher, or whatever, completely screw up his own church's teachings and lead people astray? Of course. But it's hard to label this "the church's fault."

 

[extraordinary]

No offense, but your example is rather absurd.
Can a lone priest, preacher, or whatever,
completely screw up his own church's teachings and lead people astray?
Of course. But it's hard to label this "the church's fault."

Reality is absolutely NOT absurd!

Everyone knows of these examples (which are quite famous),
so they have NOT been done in bunch of dark closets all over the world!

Obviously, the church has NOT convinced people that ...
they cannot just continually repent of habitual sins and go to heaven.

So, has this travesty been due to ignorance or to dishonesty?

And don't forget, murder is just one example of a habitual sin that is deadly.
.

 

[Bro in Christ]

.
“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that
no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:15)

The extreme example of this is …
the mafia killer who goes to mass every week, and dutifully confesses his sins to his priest.

Evidently, he has been raised to believe that this will get him into heaven!

Who’s fault is this? … It must be the church’s fault.

Being a murderer is one example of a sinning lifestyle that sends people to hell.

Rev 21:7-8 • “He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God
and he shall be My son.But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers,
sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the
lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Aren’t all of the other habitual sins just as deadly?

The other “sin lists” in the NT provide dozens more of these deadly sins,
which, if committed habitually (without sincere repentance obviously),
will guarantee hell for the practitioners.
.

Thank God that since he gave us an option to believe that He died for my sins on the cross he has sent all my sins as far as the east from the west ....

since I cannot work for heaven I also can not earn my way up there ...

all Christ thk you

 

[prodromos]

Reality is absolutely NOT absurd!

Everyone knows of these examples (which are quite famous),
so they have NOT been done in bunch of dark closets all over the world!

Apparently I am not everyone. What are these examples?, and I second Ignatius' question as to which popes or councils of the Catholic Church teach the above?

So, has this travesty been due to ignorance or to dishonesty?

Most likely pride. I don't know why you are focused on the Catholic Church though. Do you honestly think there aren't people in other Churches who somehow think that no matter what sins they commit, the fact that they warm a seat in Church once a week, or because they said a prayer once years before, means they will escape judgement?

 

[prodromos]

I'm curious to know what false doctrines you believe the EOC has taught?

Still waiting for a response.

 

[extraordinary]

Still waiting for a response (re: errors in the EOC).

I have time for one ... and it will end with this example, thank you very much!

How are exorcisms in the EOC doin' lately?
Dey should be occuring in every parish ... mmm, let's see ... how about daily!

Caution:
No switching to any other denomination allowed .... remember, we iz talkin' about the EOC.

P.S. icons are now obsolete ...
they were used back in the day when believers could not read nor write!
I've met EOC people who were actually prayin' to icons ... a whole wall full of them.
Don't think the EOC was discouraging this terrible nonsense, do you?

Signing off now ...
.

 

[prodromos]

I have time for one ... and it will end with this example, thank you very much!

How are exorcisms in the EOC doin' lately?
Dey should be occuring in every parish ... mmm, let's see ... how about daily!

Exorcism actually occurs frequently in the Orthodox Church, everytime there is a baptism for one. In countries where witchcraft is prevalent such as many in Africa, demonic influence is very common and our priests are often required to cast out demons.
Even if this wasn't the case, I fail to see how this would equate to a doctrinal error unless you believed the Orthodox Church taught that demons were no longer a problem. I can assure you that this could not be further from the truth. Spiritual warfare is an integral part of an Orthodox catechism.

P.S. icons are now obsolete ...
they were used back in the day when believers could not read nor write!

You demonstrate profound ignorance if you think all icons are is scripture for the illiterate.

I've met EOC people who were actually prayin' to icons ... a whole wall full of them.
Don't think the EOC was discouraging this terrible nonsense, do you?

Since I have a wall of icons in my own home, actually four walls of our prayer room, I can tell you that I or any other Orthodox do not pray to the icons, we pray to Christ, who is depicted on the icon, and we ask the prayers of our fellow Christians, men and women who have proven to be righteous ("the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective") who are also depicted in the icons. Why would the Church discourage us from asking others to pray for us?

No doctrinal error there either. Perhaps you had something else in mind, or you just have a habit of throwing around false accusations?

 

[extraordinary]

Perhaps you had something else in mind, or you just have a habit of throwing around false accusations?

Yes, the something else I had in mind was to tell you ...

God intended for His church to continue on with the same church He founded 2000 years ago,
which means He intended His church to follow the practices of Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc.,
which are all laid out in the New Testament (and if you so request, I would be happy to send you one).

Thus, basically ALL churches have strayed from God's Plan ... big time!
(And the OP provides some obvious reasons for why this happened.)

And thus, my accusations of the EOC are not false!
And I refuse to argue with you about it.
.