Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

But in the NT, you accept the edition agreed upon by the Church rather than that which is in the earliest surviving books; that is what is puzzling me. The NT canon you accept is not the one in the earliest surviving manuscripts, it is the one the Church accepted, and that meant the exclusion of 1 Clement from the Alexandrinus and of Barnabas and Hermas from the Sinaiticus.

So we have three books. The two very earliest surviving complete manuscripts have in them books which the Church decided to leave out. You are surely, therefore, accepting the canon of the Church, not the evidence of the earliest manuscript copies of the Scriptures.

What continues to puzzle me is why you accept an NT canon edited by the Church rather than the earliest surviving original books.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What continues to puzzle me is why you accept an NT canon edited by the Church rather than the earliest surviving original books.
Peace,
Anglian

Greetings Anglian. Again it is not about the books that are in the current Canon but the TRANSLATIONS of them.
Another words, I believe the OT book of ISAIAH is horribly translated as is the NC book of Revelation.

Have the Orthodox ever did a translation of Revelation? If not, then that could be a problem as far as how one views the Final Consummation in the Bible.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327

Ezekiel 38:22 "And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who with him, flooding rain, Great Hailstones, fire, and brimstone. [Revelation 16:21 and 20:9]

Reve 16:21and Hail, Great as talent weight is descending out of the heaven up the men and blaspheme the men the God out of the stripes of the Hail, that Great is the stripe/blow of her, tremendous.

 

[Anglian]

Dear LOL,

Yes, there is a translation in the new Orthodox Study Bible, OT, which was published last year; it is easily findable by googling.

I take your point about the translations, but just think, if you didn't accept the canon authorised by the Church, you'd be having to translate Hermas, Barnabas and 1 Clement. So you've got those ECF's to thank for something.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LOL,

Yes, there is a translation in the new Orthodox Study Bible, OT, which was published last year; it is easily findable by googling.

I take your point about the translations, but just think, if you didn't accept the canon authorised by the Church, you'd be having to translate Hermas, Barnabas and 1 Clement. So you've got those ECF's to thank for something.

Peace,

Anglian

Greetins Anglian. If those were in the Canon, I would also translate them.

Edit to add: I have never read those btw

Revelation 15:3 and They are singing the Song of-Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the Song of the Lamb-kin, saying, "Great and marvelous the works of Thee, Lord!, the God, the Almighty, just and true the ways of Thee, the King of the [*Ages/Saints] Nations"

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Mosheh and the sons of Yisra'el this song unto YHWH, and they spake saying,--"I will sing to YHWH for He is exalted exalted,--The horse and his rider hath He cast into the Sea".

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

That really seems to settle the question in the OP.

The ECF's certainly must have know Scripture better - because they knew what was and was not Scripture. Without 'em, you'd be on Barnabas by now. Still worth reading though.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

That really seems to settle the question in the OP.

The ECF's certainly must have know Scripture better - because they knew what was and was not Scripture. Without 'em, you'd be on Barnabas by now. Still worth reading though.

Peace,

Anglian

Greetings Anglian. Thanks again for your input and I suppose there is nothing more to really discuss then. I still remain Solo Scriptura regardless.
I am now unsubscribing to this thread as I have voted and given my views and hopefully more will join in this thread. Be well.

 

[angelosgabriel]

Greetings Anglian. Thanks again for your input and I suppose there is nothing more to really discuss then. I still remain Solo Scriptura regardless.

LittleLamb, you have said that you are "Solo Scriptura", yet you have failed to answer Anglian's question repeatedly which is: "What basis do you have for accepting the New Testament canon as Scripture?" This is the heart of matters. The Canon as we have it was put together by the Church (e.g. pre-Schism Catholic/Orthodox Church). If this Church is without authority or credibility, what basis do you have for subscribing to Sola Scriptura? And what came first- the Church or the Bible (i.e. how was the true Christian faith discerned apart from the New Testament)?

 

[calluna]

LittleLamb, you have said that you are "Solo Scriptura", yet you have failed to answer Anglian's question repeatedly which is: "What basis do you have for accepting the New Testament canon as Scripture?" This is the heart of matters. The Canon as we have it was put together by the Church (e.g. pre-Schism Catholic/Orthodox Church).

Not so. The canons (there are several) as used by Constantinians are heretical.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Angelosgabriel,

Our friend LLOJ has, I think, unsubscribed, so we cannot expect him to answer.

Of course, over the OT canon there is no agreement, but the NT, which has been the main object of our discussion here came, as your say, from the Tradition of the Church of which it is such an important part.

As we all know, the idea of a canon developed partly in response to the circulation of bogus 'gospels', forcing the Church to declare which books were and were not received, a process begun long before the Emperor Constantine was a glint in any one's eye, and, in the East, continued long after. Indeed, as we know, the Ethiopian Church has never had a settled canon, and in the East, LLOJ's favourite book took a long time before it was accepted.

St. Athanasius the Apostolic's festal letter of AD 367 contains the first complete NT canon as it it is now generally received - and anyone checking St. Constantine's dates will see how little it has to do with him.

But those who have had another revelation will see it otherwise, and we should leave them to their own tradition amd not disturb them with works by scholars such as Metzger, Ehrman and Green, who operate outside both our traditions, and within one of scholarly inquiry.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[katherine2001]

This is OT, but Angelosgabriel, may God grant you many, many years!

 

[katherine2001]

Not so. The canons (there are several) as used by Constantinians are heretical.

Calluna, Angelosgabriel was talking about the New Testament canon. If they are heretical, then you don't have the New Testament. It was the Church that decided what books belonged in the New Testament. If they were heretical, as you argue, then how can you use the New Testament?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Calluna, Angelosgabriel was talking about the New Testament canon. If they are heretical, then you don't have the New Testament. It was the Church that decided what books belonged in the New Testament. If they were heretical, as you argue, then how can you use the New Testament?

By studying the Greek of it? For example, I view that "Great City" burning in revelation as possibly symbolizing the "lake of fire".

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7159576
The Lake of Fire: Mercy or Not?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Lake mentioned 11 times. 5 times in Luke [Luke 5:1,2 8:22,23,33] 6 times in Revelation

Matt 23:33 `Serpents! progeny/gennh-mata <1081> of vipers! how ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV?

Luke 5:1 It became yet, in the of the throng to be nearing to Him to be hearing the word of the God, and He was standing beside the Lake/limnhn <3041> Gennesaret/gennh-saret <1082>, [Matt 14:34, Mark 6:53]

 

[calluna]

Calluna, Angelosgabriel was talking about the New Testament canon. If they are heretical, then you don't have the New Testament.

If a person's OT canon is heretical, his decision on the NT is not to be trusted. He may get the NT canon right because he wishes to appear orthodox, so one does not throw out anyone's canon simply because they are heretics. One makes one's own decision on this, as in all things of importance.

Having said that, it's a very easy decision anyway, particularly for the NT. One can detect the hand of the devil, and the truth, immediately.

It was the Church that decided what books belonged in the New Testament.

Nobody has ever decided the content of any religious canon for anyone else. There are jokers around who like to pretend that they do so, of course, but then a bit of humor lightens things up now and again.

What appears astonishing at first view is that the RCC and Eastern Orthodox took several hundred years to recognise what takes normal mortals a few seconds. But then one must remember that they did not exist for several centuries!

 

[katherine2001]

The New Testament that is in every Bible today is the New Testament canon determined by the Church. If this New Testament was produced by heretics, why are the Protestants still using that New Testament canon?

 

[calluna]

The New Testament that is in every Bible today is the New Testament canon determined by the Church. If this New Testament was produced by heretics, why are the Protestants still using that New Testament canon?

Why ask questions right after you've been told the answer?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The New Testament that is in every Bible today is the New Testament canon determined by the Church. If this New Testament was produced by heretics, why are the Protestants still using that New Testament canon?

Umm, to find out what is heretical and what is not?
We can't interpret Revelation without the rest of the Bible for example correct?

Matt 7:26 And all the one hearing of Me the words, these, and no doing them shall be likened to a man, stupid/foolish, whoany builds of him the house upon the sand. 27 And descended the rains and the streams and blow the winds and they toward-strike the house, that, and she falls and was the fall of her Great.

Reve 14:8 And another messenger, second-one, follows saying "she falls, she falls, Babylon the Great, the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations. [Jeremiah 51:8]

 

[calluna]

Umm, to find out what is heretical and what is not?

Come to rescue your church?

 

[angelosgabriel]

katherine2001, thank you for your blessing. Peace be with you!

Umm, to find out what is heretical and what is not?
We can't interpret Revelation without the rest of the Bible for example correct?

LittleLamb, we understand your preference for understanding what the New Testament means is by going back to the Greek (of course not a bad idea in and of itself). But why do you parse the Greek of the Gospel according to Matthew instead of the Protoevangelium of James? If you don't wish to answer our question, I'll ask another. Why do you think that your understanding of the New Testament surpasses that of the Church Fathers who had Greek as their native tongue, and were only separated from the culture and events of the New Testament by perhaps a couple or a few centuries (I ask this in earnest)? Ireneus of Lyons was taught the faith by Polycarp who was instructed by John (the Gospel-writer and disciple whom Jesus loved). Also, is discerning Spiritual truth primarily an intellectual exercise of correctly parsing verbs and vocabulary and knowing historical contexts? Or is it as Anglian implies, that Spiritual (and Biblical) understanding is necessarily rooted in a Spiritual life? Or as Evagrius Ponticus, a 4th century monk says, "If you are a theologian you will pray truly, and if you pray truly you will be a theologian."?

calluna, if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain (or even a meager level of discernment) which books are inspired by God and which are not (correct me if I'm wrong). Do you have any criteria for discerning what is Scripture, or is it pure intuition? For example, why do you believe the Wisdom of Sirach ought to be excluded from the Old Testament? After the apostles, have there been any non-heretics throughout history who you admire as genuine believers in the Lord (prior to the reformation)? How did Christians know what to believe prior to the compilation of the Bible? Is the Faith primarily about knowing all the right things about God? Were the Church Fathers holy men in your opinion (from what know of them)? Have you ready any works by the Church Fathers? Have you ready about any of their lives (or deaths)?

How do you both interpret Pauls words to Timothy when he refers to the Church as "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)? What is the church in your opinion? Jesus proclaims that He Himself would establish His church, and not even Hades would prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Jesus promised that the Spirit would lead the disciples into "all truth" (John 16:13). How soon did this "all truth" disappear into oblivion? When did it reappear?

O Heavenly King, O Comforter, Spirit of Truth who are present in all places and fillest all things, come and dwell in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O Gracious Lord.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Angelosgabriel,

It is, I suspect, hard for those of us who inherit the Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition to comprehend those from other traditions who see a dichotomy between tradition and scripture.

The latter often cite comments about not holding to tradition out of their context, but if we look at Colossians 2:6-8, we can see the blessed Saint Paul identifying the Lord with the Apostolic tradition even as he castigates those who receive the 'tradition' of men. Christ is the author of the Apostolic tradition as eventually recorded in the NT canon. He authorised them, and the Holy Spirit safeguarded their message in His Church through its writings, including, where necessary to ensure a right reading, the Liturgy and the writings of the Saints and Fathers, as well as the Councils. The tradition of men springs from their self-authorised reading of just the texts shorn of this context.

There is no tension between Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture - they are the same thing. The Church recognised the Apostolic witness and did not mix poison with the honey when it came to receive the NT canon.

All of this is well-attested, not just in Holy Tradition and the works of Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican scholars, but in the writings of scholars such as Metzger and Ehrman. But those who have some private revelation will, like Marcion, take what they think is needful, and omit what they suppose they do not need.

Their understanding may, of course, be far better than that of anyone else, but since they refuse to accept the writings of such a cloud of witnesses, they must pardon those of us who fail to be convinced by assertion unsupported by either discussion or evidence.

Peace be with you,

Anglian

 

[Gwendolyn]

Having said that, it's a very easy decision anyway, particularly for the NT. One can detect the hand of the devil, and the truth, immediately.

Hello, Calluna. I just caught your post. Forgive me if perhaps you have already answered a question like this.

If we are to use the Spirit to discern which writings are truth, which pool of writings are we to choose from? Ought we survey all of the Christian writings that existed before a council decided the canon? Some early "lists" of different writings that were used in liturgical settings include common things we accept now - the Gospel according to Mark, for example. But the lists also include other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome, etc.

Do you think that, in determining which writings we think are inspired, we should survey everything? I guess that would make the most logical sense to do. At least historically, anyway.