How do we know . . . .

[racer]

Why's it got to be written down?

Real quick I want to respond to this question. From St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II:

Chapter 4.—Origin of Writing.

5. But because words pass away as soon as they strike upon the air, and last no longer than their sound, men have by means of letters formed signs of words. Thus the sounds of the voice are made visible to the eye, not of course as sounds, but by means of certain signs . . . .
​

Scripture was written for preservation purposes and for teaching.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Scripture was written for preservation purposes and for teaching.

True...

However, that is not the reason they became canon nor was everything that was deemed true was included in the canon.

Writings that were false were labeled as false... however many true documents were kept by The Church, but not listed as canon because they were not used in the Liturgical services of The Church. That did not make them false, just not Liturgically used.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The only reason for listing the canonical books was so that all Churches would have a copy of the books used in Liturgical practice.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The only reason for listing the canonical books was so that all Churches would have a copy of the books used in Liturgical practice.

Forgive me...

 

[Asinner]

We also have written words as expressed in the Liturgy, Hymns, Prayers, Councils of the Church. These have not been forgotten.

Love,
Christina

 

[racer]

True...

However, that is not the reason they became canon nor was everything that was deemed true was included in the canon.

Writings that were false were labeled as false... however many true documents were kept by The Church, but not listed as canon because they were not used in the Liturgical services of The Church. That did not make them false, just not Liturgically used.

Forgive me...

So, then, though they may not be contained in Scripture, I'm correct to assume that these documents are still kept in written form? If so, then what are they and from whence do they acquire their authority and where is this authority affirmed?

 

[racer]

The only reason for listing the canonical books was so that all Churches would have a copy of the books used in Liturgical practice.

Forgive me...

I know that Augustine is not very well respected among Orthodox, but he doesn't say that. He says something different. Here's what he says:

On Christian Doctrine, Book I:

Chapter 39 - He who is mature in faith hope and love, needs Scripture no longerAnd thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. So that in their case, I think, the saying is already fulfilled: "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." Yet by means of these instruments (as they may be called), so great an edifice of faith and love has been built up in them, that, holding to what is perfect, they do not seek for what is only in part perfect- of course, I mean, so far as is possible in this life; for, in comparison with the future life, the life of no just and holy man is perfect here. Therefore the apostle says: "Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity:" because, when a man shall have reached the eternal world, while the other two graces will fail, love will remain greater and more assured.

 

[racer]

What for you constitutes proof?

What do you assert is proof of the authority of Oral Tradition? What is the evidence on which you base your belief?

The Trinune nature of God is not properly defined in the Bible. It's only in Ecumenical Councils that the church finally stated these

The terminology is not explicit, but the triune nature is clearly described.

You're loaded questions don't help.

Nor do baseless accusations.

If the Bible is all sufficient then why do Protestants have less books in their OT than the Catholics?

Um . . . because the Catholics--true to their form--have added unnecessary books to the canon. We argue less, Catholics argue more.

Did the books they discard say "Discard me"?

Did they say "put me in?"

If they didn't - if Luther used some other means - other than the Bible - to determine that they should be so discarded, then you've proof that the Bible itself is insufficient as a guide - it does not authenticate itself!

And you have proven that you have a gross misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura . . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So, then, though they may not be contained in Scripture, I'm correct to assume that these documents are still kept in written form? If so, then what are they and from whence do they acquire their authority and where is this authority affirmed?

Start here... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.i.html

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

Start here... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.i.html

Forgive me...

Are these the documents of which you speak when you talk about documents not contained in the canon?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Are these the documents of which you speak when you talk about documents not contained in the canon?

No...

These are the canons of the councils that created the canon.

Notice the other documents that they speak about.

Such as "The Didache".

Just because a document was not used in the Liturgical services of The Church does not mean that The Church felt them to be fakes.

The documents that were canonized were done so to insure that all the Churches had a set of the same documents to use Liturgically and that substitutions would not be used during the Liturgy.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html

Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church [in the Liturgy] besides the Canonical Scripture.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
454The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

No...

These are the canons of the councils that created the canon.

They did not "create" the canon. They compiled the texts written by men under Holy Inspiration of God. There is a difference.

Notice the other documents that they speak about.

Such as "The Didache".

From what I remember of reading the Didache is that it basically summarizes Scripture. Can you think of anything contained in the Didache that is not in Scripture.

Just because a document was not used in the Liturgical services of The Church does not mean that The Church felt them to be fakes.

You've yet to provide evidence that the canon was only compiled to serve as reading material for liturgical services.

The documents that were canonized were done so to insure that all the Churches had a set of the same documents to use Liturgically and that substitutions would not be used during the Liturgy.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html

Forgive me...

Okay, but what is your evidence that only texts that were supposed to be read in liturgical services were allowed to be canonized? Because the source you link does not say what you assert. Here is the title:

Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)​

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.​

What this in effect says is that nothing will be read in "church" (not liturgical services) but SCRIPTURE.

What it does NOT SAY is that nothing will be canonized as Scripture except that which is to be read in Church (liturgical services).

There is quite a difference in the terminology used and your assertion.

 

[racer]

No...

These are the canons of the councils that created the canon.

Notice the other documents that they speak about.

But, what of these elusive documents of which you spoke that were left out of the canon because they are not read in liturgical services. What are they?

Such as "The Didache".

That's one document . . . .

The documents that were canonized were done so to insure that all the Churches had a set of the same documents to use Liturgically and that substitutions would not be used during the Liturgy.

Where does one find this rule recorded?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

They did not "create" the canon. They compiled the texts written by men under Holy Inspiration of God. There is a difference.

They did not write the NT Scriptures... but they did create the "canon". IOW ~ The "list" of scriptures that are to be used.

The word canon means "a measure". It's like a yard stick that we measure things against.

From what I remember of reading the Didache is that it basically summarizes Scripture. Can you think of anything contained in the Didache that is not in Scripture.

I think you should read it again... It's very short. ... How to baptize, etc...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html

You've yet to provide evidence that the canon was only compiled to serve as reading material for liturgical services.

I think you are missing the correct historical context.

Okay, but what is your evidence that only texts that were supposed to be read in liturgical services were allowed to be canonized? Because the source you link does not say what you assert. Here is the title:

Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)​

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.​

What this in effect says is that nothing will be read in "church" (not liturgical services) but SCRIPTURE.

What it does NOT SAY is that nothing will be canonized as Scripture except that which is to be read in Church (liturgical services).

There is quite a difference in the terminology used and your assertion.

Let me see if I can go through the texts and find it spelled out the way you are looking for. But be aware, the authors of the canons never had the idea that what they were writing would be read by someone who has absolutly no idea what they were talking about. They were writing to a very specific audience... the other Bishops.

I'll see what I can find.

To me, some of this is like someone telling you that you don't understand what you yourself wrote after reading a letter written by you. These are the canons of The Apostolic Churches. Of course they know what they mean.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

How about The Shepherd of Hermas, First Apology by Justin Martyr, The Letter of Clement I, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Church History of Eusebius... etc...

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

How about The Shepherd of Hermas, First Apology by Justin Martyr, The Letter of Clement I, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Church History of Eusebius and The Protevangelium of James.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

They did not write the NT Scriptures... but they did create the "canon". IOW ~ The "list" of scriptures that are to be used.

The did not "create" the canon. They compiled the texts they deemed appropriate into one book--the Bible.

The word canon means "a measure". It's like a yard stick that we measure things against.

Still, they did not "create" the "measure." They may have identified it, but they did not create what teachings were to be measured against.

Man did not "create" the inch, foot, or yard stick, but he identified it. He named it.

I think you should read it again... It's very short. ... How to baptize, etc...

Okay, I read it again, so with the exception of the fact that it gave specific instruction as to how baptism was to be performed and how the Eucharist was to be conducted, the Didache basically summarizes Scripture. It appears to me to be someone’s summation of what the apostles taught from memory. For instance, your professor gives a lecture, you don’t remember word for word what he said, but you summarize his teachings to the best of your mental ability or according to the quality of note taking you have done.

The Didache is not Scripture. Are you asserting that the Council of Nicea proclaimed that the Didache was of equal authority as Scripture.

I think you are missing the correct historical context.

How so? And how does this comment address my post? You’re dodging.

Let me see if I can go through the texts and find it spelled out the way you are looking for. But be aware, the authors of the canons never had the idea that what they were writing would be read by someone who has absolutly no idea what they were talking about.

So, what Christians of today have no idea of what the apostles spoke? Or, only the the Orthodox church knows of what they spoke? How do you know that it is the Orthodoxy Church who knows?

They were writing to a very specific audience... the other Bishops.

So, then your ordinary lay person really shouldn’t even bother with reading Scripture? And when Scripture warns beware of false gospels, it doesn’t apply to the laity only the bishops?

I'll see what I can find.

Thank you!

To me, some of this is like someone telling you that you don't understand what you yourself wrote after reading a letter written by you. These are the canons of The Apostolic Churches. Of course they know what they mean.

Forgive me...

How so? The men who compiled Scripture did NOT write it.

 

[racer]

How about The Shepherd of Hermas, First Apology by Justin Martyr, The Letter of Clement I, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Church History of Eusebius and The Protevangelium of James.

Forgive me...

Okay, I've read some of these, though it has been a couple of years or so. Are you asserting that these are considered of equal authority and inspiration of Scripture, the Bible? If so, where does one find this equality of inspiration and authority established and affirmed? Are you saying that the councils, such as the Council of Nicea, proclaimed such assertions?

 

[racer]

How about The Shepherd of Hermas, First Apology by Justin Martyr, The Letter of Clement I, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Church History of Eusebius... etc...

Forgive me...

Perhaps the first obvious hole in your argument from the Didache:

1And concerning the Eucharist, hold Eucharist thus: 2 First, concerning the Cup, "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child, which, thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child; to thee be glory forever."

I'm not really knowledgeable regarding "liturgical services," but is Holy Communion separate from liturgical services? If not, are not these words (this prayer) found in the Didache but not Scripture, spoken in church?

This would negate your argument that all that was compiled in Scripture was what is to be read in liturgical services. Why would this prayer have been left out.

 

[Philothei]

Actually it is both... Is there a problem with that? Or are you trying to make it seem that the argument is flawed? Because everything in Liturgy is from the Scripture. The format is taken also from the Didache which is a 2-3 century doc. Many things have been shifted around... since them though. The agape meal for example have been swifted back and forth like ... before the communion after the communion... and so forth... Anything else you want to know about Liturgy?


http://www.orthodoxcentral.com/articles/bibleinliturgy.htm