Infancy Gospel of James?

[ScottBot]

So was there a God written inspired table of contents? Or did they have to decide exactly what was inspired and what to include in Scripture? Do you have any idea how many writings they to go throught to come up with 27? Do you also know (as mentioned in Scripture) that Paul wrote several letter's not included in Scripture? I forget of the top of my head what Book it is, but Paul mentions other letter's he sent to the people, and it was one of the books in which there was only one letter, (like Romans as opposed to Corinthians in which there were 2 letters)

THe inspired table of contents is right there on the first page....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The scriptures that God wanted us to have we have.. God is faithful..Do you not think that God can preserve and give us what He wanted to give us.. All we need are written in the scriptures..

Really?

Did you know that the OT of Christ's time was the Septuagint?

Septuagint: The oldest Greek version of the Old Testament, traditionally said to have been translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II: most scholars believe that only the Pentateuch was completed in the early part of the 3rd century b.c. and that the remaining books were translated in the next two centuries.

Did you know that the OT that you read from the KJV is the Masoric text, compiled by the Jews 70-80 years after Christ's death?

Do you think Christ wanted you to read the same texts he taught from or the less complete version of today?

Christ did not leave us a book. He left us his Church.

He did not say.... "upon this rock I will write my book", he did say... "upon this rock I will build my Church".

The books of the NT are the tools developed by "The Church". Using them outside the Divine Services of The Holy Church is to use them out of context.

Forgive me...

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

that still leads me to the question as to why all the writting that supposedly exist that confirm Marian Dogmas, etc... (things not regularly adhered to by protestants) were rejected for the canon.

It is a complete mystery to me why the church fathers would leave out things that are supposedly essential to the faith.

The Orthodox Church has no Marian dogmas that cannot be demonstrated by scripture.

That being said: You have the mistaken belief that the bible was intended to be an exhaustive manual of faith. The only scriptures that were canonized were those which were traditionally attibuted to first generation apostles or their biographers. The scripture is the rule of faith, not the whole of faith. The apostles could not hacve written to us about how to deal with cloning, transfusions, gene therapy, and the like. The scriptures are the straight edge by which truth is measured.

The Assumption of Mary? Not dogmatic, pious tradition. The IC? We don't ascribe to it. Perpetual Virginity? The bible supports it. Some say it doesn't- but some say that the bible supports premillenialism, some OSAS. We're not especially impressed with Protestant exegesis- we have Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, and Symeon the New Theolgian- we don't need Tim LaHaye.
kali nichta
James

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Orthodox Church has no Marian dogmas that cannot be demonstrated by scripture.

Arbitrated by who or what?
According to what rule?

Scripture is the rule of faith

It's called "Sola Scriptura."

The scriptures are the straight edge by which truth is measured.

A beautiful and very accurate definition of Sola Scriptura.

The Assumption of Mary? Not dogmatic, pious tradition.

I agree, which creates some very significant issues vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

The IC? We don't ascribe to it.

I tend to personally agree.

Which creates some very significant issues vis-a-vis the Cathollic Church.

Perpetual Virginity? The bible supports it. Some say it doesn't

I disagree.

There's nothing whatsoever in God's holy inerrant written Word about the private sex lives of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born - NOTHING whatsoever about how often Mary and Joseph did or didn't "do it" after Jesus was born, thus this dogma has zero biblical confirmation.

And IMHO (that's all, IMHO) this is NOT an issue of interpretation or hermeneutics. For it to be such an issue, there would have to be some Scriptures we are interpreting, and since there are NONE whatsoever about the sharing of such intimacies between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born, therefore there are no verses to interpret - thus this has nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics or interpretation.



Thank you for this important discussion, and thank you for reading my $0.01. May God richly bless you and yours in Christ our Suffering Servant in this holy season of Lent.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Arbitrated by who or what?
According to what rule?

According to the Orthodox Church. This does not impact you, since you are not part of the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, our view is a valid and well-supported view- supported by logic, scripture, tradition. (a formula that would be supported by both Lutheran and Anglican)

It's called "Sola Scriptura."

No, it's called canon. Sola scriptura is an odd and etymologically problematic phrase.

A beautiful and very accurate definition of Sola Scriptura.

Thanks, but it is actually simply the English rendering of the word kanona

I agree, which creates some very significant issues vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

Somewhat significant, but no more significant than those posed by those who demand scripture only and then set to shifting the sets of scripture brought into the argument.

I tend to personally agree.

Which creates some very significant issues vis-a-vis the Cathollic Church.

See above

I disagree.

As predicted. The poblem is in the reading of the canon, and who decides on what the canon actually says, which is open to significant differences in what the canon says. The Rabbiic Jews disagree with our HIGHLY allegorized reading of the OT prophecies. The strictest, most literalist rendering of OT prophecies, sans Christian scripture ( a new and added tradition) puts their interpretation on equal or perhaps supeior standing to our own.

There's nothing whatsoever in God's holy inerrant written Word about the private sex lives of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born - NOTHING whatsoever about how often Mary and Joseph did or didn't "do it" after Jesus was born, thus this dogma has zero biblical confirmation.

According to the ECFs, and in particular John of Damascus, you in this case are wrong, in particuar due to your truncated reading of certain NT passages. There is NOTHING in the NT which supports Mary having other children-if one reads the passages in full.

And IMHO (that's all, IMHO) this is NOT an issue of interpretation or hermeneutics. For it to be such an issue, there would have to be some Scriptures we are interpreting, and since there are NONE whatsoever about the sharing of such intimacies between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born, therefore there are no verses to interpret - thus this has nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics or interpretation.

On the contrary, the understanding of the Nicean fathers, who referred to her as The Virgin, not "the once Virgin," was that there is nothing in the NT that says that Mary and Jospeh either married or consummated.

Thank you for this important discussion, and thank you for reading my $0.01. May God richly bless you and yours in Christ our Suffering Servant in this holy season of Lent.

Thank you very kindly. May God save us from the vice of pride, from idle talk, the lust for power, and the need to judge our brothers.
Iakovos



Pax!


- Josiah



.[/quote]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

According to the Orthodox Church.

So, is it your view that each teacher (person, congregation or denomination) is it's own interpreter and arbiter? Or is that true only for the Orthodox Church?

No, it's called canon. Sola scriptura is an odd and etymologically problematic phrase.

Yours was a very accurate definition of Sola Scriptura.

There is NOTHING in the NT which supports Mary having other children-if one reads the passages in full.

I agree.

However, there is no Dogma of Jesus the Only Child. To my knowledge, such a dogma does not exist in any Christian denomination. The dogma is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Apples and oranges.



Does this rejected noncanonical book confirm the DOGMAS of the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary? That is the question before it, IMHO.


Thank you.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

So, is it your view that each teacher (person, congregation or denomination) is it's own interpreter and arbiter? Or is that true only for the Orthodox Church?

We patently reject the gladhanded franchising of truth and authority that is implicit in those who have rejected the apostolic authority invested in the visible church.

Those who reject such authority and yet claim the bible as their authority deny the obvious, that EVERYONE reads and interprets the scriptures, therefore it is the interpretation of scripture that each and every body/individual measures themself against.

We do recognize that we are in covenant with one another, and that our mutual submission does not apply to those who are not in covenant with others. Though we disagree with others, they are not ours to judge.

Yours was a very accurate definition of Sola Scriptura.

Canon implies someone holding the measure. Sola Sciptura- by the use of the term sola (only) denies the measurer(s)

I agree.

However, there is no Dogma of Jesus the Only Child. To my knowledge, such a dogma does not exist in any Christian denomination. The dogma is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Apples and oranges.

Not apples and oranges- these ae inextricably bound. Should Mary be a mother to others, she is not Ever Virgin. Should she be Ever Virgin, she is not mother to others. There is, as I stated, no NT verse that states that Joseph and Mary were ever married, or consumated their union. Nor is their evidence of other children. And, as I stated, she is referred to as "the Virgin" in the Creed, not as the "artist formerly known as the Virgin, but now hitting it with Joseph."

Does this rejected noncanonical book confirm the DOGMAS of the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary? That is the question before it, IMHO.

A Dogma would not be confirmed by a noncanoical book- even though noncanonical witings would contribute to the understanding of the Dogma. Since we Orthodox do not embrace two of the three as dogmatic, why do you continuously ask us about them?
As regards the EV, the Nicene Creed is, to us, canonical and binding, it is the very statement of Christian faith. Again, she is therein referred to as the Virgin- and this was the understanding of the primitive Chistian fathers, as well, the manner in which they read holy scripture.

Thank you.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

de nada
ereni
Iakovos, duolos

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Not apples and oranges- these ae inextricably bound. Should Mary be a mother to others, she is not Ever Virgin.

Yes. I think no one argues that.

Should she be Ever Virgin, she is not mother to others.

Of course, but the lack of children specificly mentioned in the Bible does not - in any sense - confirm that Mary and Joseph did not, even once, share such intimacies.

You must be aware that it is biologically possible to have an instance of such sharing and for that not to result in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible. That seems to ME to be a completely unreasonable assumption.

My sister and her husband have no children mentioned in the Bible. In fact, they have no children at all. I find it unreasonable to therefore state, as absolutely and dogmatically certain, that my sister is therefore a virgin. I don't know. Frankly, to be perfectly honest and a tad blunt, I think it's none of my business if her husband and her share such intimacies and if so how often. But we seem to radically disagree about that.

A Dogma would not be confirmed by a noncanoical book

As a Protestant, I completely agree.

Thus, I'm a tad uncomfortable with declaring Christians to be heretics, pronouncing anathams, and questioning thier salvation over a dogma confirmed by noncanonical books, statements, writings, etc.


Thank you for your valued contribution to this discussion, and for reading my $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah