How do we know . . . .

[Mathetes the kerux]

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


Forgive me...

You include the apocrypha? Yet even the Jews themselves did not consider those writings of the level of the OT Scriptures.

Canon is a measuring line . . . so to be canon meant that something met the qualifications . . . and whether something was used in liturgy or not was NOT one of the qualifications. Being used in liturgy and being accepted are two different matters . . . they are not synonomous concepts.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

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...

Yet did not Clement distinguish between the level of authority of his writings and the NT doc's?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

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...

Yet did not Clement distinguish between the level of authority of his writings and the NT doc's?

And did not Justin have some semi heretical views?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

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


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.


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

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.

Can you think of anything contained in the Didache that is not in Scripture.

yeah . . . baptism with sand . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

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


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.


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

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.

Can you think of anything contained in the Didache that is not in Scripture.

yeah . . . baptism with sand . . .

a few interesting concepts of the prophetic utterance and the prophet . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

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


Forgive me...

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.

Can you provide proof of this assertion? Because to the best of my knowledge . . . the canonization was a BIT MORE serious than just having a common reader. It was to have a set standard from which to draw doctrine and practice and from what to test orthodoxy. They were set more for the purpose to define what was authoritative and what was not . . . not some mundane and periphrial intention of providing a common reader.

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.

True . . . but they certainly did not consider them on par with the authority of Holy Writ either. Certain Egyptian doc's that pre-date Solomon have almost verbatim sayings found in proverbs . . . are they true . . . sure . . . but they are certainly not to be considered Scripture. The things NOT in the Canon have never been considered as equal in authority to what IS in the Canon. I am not aware of ANY church father using non-canonical material to inspire a meaning considered of equal authority into a canonical text. IOW, no quoting the Didache to authoritatively interpret, say, Paul.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You include the apocrypha? Yet even the Jews themselves did not consider those writings of the level of the OT Scriptures.

Canon is a measuring line . . . so to be canon meant that something met the qualifications . . . and whether something was used in liturgy or not was NOT one of the qualifications. Being used in liturgy and being accepted are two different matters . . . they are not synonomous concepts.

Hello Mathetes,

Review the list of books that were canonized. Does your Bible contain all of them?

There are many differences from western secular teaching in the catechumenate of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In our schools it is taught so.

I belong to The Church of Antioch. This is what that Church teaches. I try never speak of my own opinion on Theology but from the position of The Orthodox Church, specifically The Church of Antioch of which I am taught.

Nice to meet you.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Church of Antioch was a Christian, worshiping Church 30 years before the first epistle was written much less all the rest of the NT scripture. The Church of Antioch doesn't guess at why she did something. She knows.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Church of Antioch was a Christian, worshiping Church 30 years before the first epistle was written much less all the rest of the NT scripture. The Church of Antioch doesn't guess at why she did something. She knows.

Christ Jesus used the Septuagint. The Church of Antioch says that too. http://www.septuagint.net/ the Jews edited the Septuagint (Masoretic) because it supports Christianity. Western Christianity is working with a watered down OT.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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.

The Holy Eucharist (communion) is at the very center of The Liturgy, everything else revolves around it. Always has, always will.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

The Church of Antioch was a Christian, worshiping Church 30 years before the first epistle was written much less all the rest of the NT scripture. The Church of Antioch doesn't guess at why she did something. She knows.

Christ Jesus used the Septuagint. The Church of Antioch says that too. http://www.septuagint.net/ the Jews edited the Septuagint (Masoretic) because it supports Christianity. Western Christianity is working with a watered down OT.

Forgive me...

are you able to give evidence, other than the claims of the church itself, that the Antiochan church of today, matches exactly the church of the past?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

matches exactly?

Are you looking for something that hasn't matured over 2000 years?

Forgive me...

 

[Rick Otto]

Scripture with a superior shelf-life.
Maybe those guys thumpin' Bibles were checkin' for freshness!

 

[Montalban]

Scripture with a superior shelf-life.
Maybe those guys thumpin' Bibles were checkin' for freshness!

The Bible's 300 years younger than the Church.

 

[Montalban]

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

There's many proofs.
Even 'Scripture' has Paul saying to the churches to keep to the teachings he told by epistle, and by word of mouth.

He even quotes a saying of Jesus that's found no where else. Thus he knew it through it being taught to him, orally.

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

No it's not. It can be argued from Scripture that the Holy Spirit comes either from, or through the Son.

If I were to argue from the Bible alone, I could say only Peter got the keys from Jesus, even though Matthew 18:18 uses similar language, because literally the word 'keys' is absent.

I don't believe this to be the case because the Church Fathers understood that Matthew 18:18 gave others the keys.

Nor do baseless accusations.

Name a baseless accusation.

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

Show me by Scripture that they are 'unnecessary

Did they say "put me in?"

D'oh! No they don't. That's exactly my point!

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

So a lot of people here say. All they do is tend to say this.

By the way, what's 'sola' mean?

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=OrthodoxyUSA;45394329]
The word canon means "a measure". It's like a yard stick that we measure things against.

Sola Scriptura. Scripture as sole measure, not as sole source.

It self authenticates because it is a book of self-reference. Just like a dictionary uses words to define words, scripture defines scripture. It has an internal structural integrity, providing a frame of reference for spiritual & moral truth... and it looks good on a coffee table.

 

[Montalban]

Sola Scriptura. Scripture as sole measure, not as sole source.

It self authenticates because it is a book of self-reference. Just like a dictionary uses words to define words, scripture defines scripture. It has an internal structural integrity, providing a frame of reference for spiritual & moral truth... and it looks good on a coffee table.

No. People write dictionaries and meanings are assigned to words, and these meanigns are fluid and need to be updated from time to time.

It doesn't self-authenticate, there's no where that says "read only me"

 

[Rick Otto]

Some truths are held to be self-evident, as when ya need to look up the meaning of a word, and ya think of readin' a dictionary.
The Septuagint was a Qumran approved 'update' of The Masoretic Text.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some truths are held to be self-evident, as when ya need to look up the meaning of a word, and ya think of readin' a dictionary.
The Septuagint was a Qumran approved 'update' of The Masoretic Text.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Some truths are held to be self-evident, as when ya need to look up the meaning of a word, and ya think of readin' a dictionary.
The Septuagint was a Qumran approved 'update' of The Masoretic Text.

What is the date of the Masoretic text? And the Septuagint?

Forgive me...