Something About Mary

[sculleywr]

I doubt you think all men are saved without agreeing with the Church.

All men are not saved by agreeing with the Church. In fact, salvation is not dependent upon the Church herself, but upon the Christ Who provided it.

However, salvation being based on obedience to Christ (Hebrews 5:9), those who know the truth of the Church must submit to the authority thereof.

 

[sculleywr]

Well, some continued to disagree about the number of books in the NT, like John of Damascus with 28, until what, 750ad?

Others thought the canon was closed by the time John son of Zebedee died, thus Polycarp would evidence it in his letter.

So, depends on which side you're on.

With the New Testament, it makes no sense that it was closed with John's death, because neither John, nor Polycarp, wrote a list of the canon. The first list we have of the 27 together is the paschal letter of St. Athanasius in the 360's.

The point, however, is that the Church continued to proclaim the faith without the existence of a canon of Scripture. So Sola Scriptura was an inapplicable doctrine in those days

 

[sculleywr]

No, I wouldn't go that far.


That's called sectarianism.


I don't mind if you are opposed to church unity. What I didn't "get" is why you refused to say this when asked.


Now there's another new word for you--hyperbole.

let me make it real big for you, since apparently I need a hammer and chisel to get what I am saying across!

I am not against Church unity! I am against the ludicrous notion that all people who proclaim Christ are of the Church and in unity already when they disagree on the most central dogmas of the faith!

Now, quite shoving words in my mouth. Please? Thank you. Now move on with life.

 

[sculleywr]

Ever encountered a definition of "ad hominem" before, sculley, or is this just a term you picked up here like "strawman" and "red herring?"

Ad hominem: Attacking the person rather than the argument of the person. This logical fallacy involves making statements that, whether true or not, have no relevance to the argument, but are an attempt to cast stain upon the one attacked. More severe cases of AH are referred to as "flaming" on many public forums, including ChristianForums.com

 

[sculleywr]

At least one patriarch disagrees, believing we're "nearly united".

I know I can't speak for all of them, nor do I pretend to. Even the reason for the split is at issue, depending on which side you take. Of course, Albion, being a non-Catholic, would take the anti-Catholic side.

One Patriarch's opinion does not mean that there are no real doctrinal issues. The Patriarch's vote in a Council is worth the same as any Bishop, all the way down to the Vicar Bishops. We would be close to a union if the filioque and the exaggerated position of the Pope were both renounced as they were by even former Popes

 

[sculleywr]

Since when did you become my translator?

Apparently since he became a telepath and started reading your innermost thoughts. Better not think of where you hid the alcohol

 

[Standing Up]

With the New Testament, it makes no sense that it was closed with John's death, because neither John, nor Polycarp, wrote a list of the canon. The first list we have of the 27 together is the paschal letter of St. Athanasius in the 360's.

The point, however, is that the Church continued to proclaim the faith without the existence of a canon of Scripture. So Sola Scriptura was an inapplicable doctrine in those days

I know a bit of the canon's traditional history, but think there was more to it.

Yes, no one doubts the apostles spoke first and then wrote it down. From there we know Irenaeus and others speak to the scripture and necessity of following it.

 

[Standing Up]

All men are not saved by agreeing with the Church. In fact, salvation is not dependent upon the Church herself, but upon the Christ Who provided it.

However, salvation being based on obedience to Christ (Hebrews 5:9), those who know the truth of the Church must submit to the authority thereof.

Like I said, you're loud and clear in what you believe.

 

[Albion]

Ad hominem: Attacking the person rather than the argument of the person.

That's right, meaning that you didn't use it properly. No need to elaborate; however, the criticism certainly was not an attack upon the person but upon a STRATEGY that is, unfortunately, in evidence on these forums coming from more than a few posters. Does that help?

 

[sculleywr]

That's right, meaning that you didn't use it properly. No need to elaborate; however, the criticism certainly was not an attack upon the person but upon a STRATEGY that is, unfortunately, in evidence on these forums coming from more than a few posters. Does that help?

When you accuse someone of being here to "smite" the nonbelievers of Roman Catholicism, that is attacking the person. That is especially true when you make up stuff for your argument.

 

[sculleywr]

Like I said, you're loud and clear in what you believe.

I'll take that as a compliment

 

[sculleywr]

I know a bit of the canon's traditional history, but think there was more to it.

Yes, no one doubts the apostles spoke first and then wrote it down. From there we know Irenaeus and others speak to the scripture and necessity of following it.

Irenaeus was speaking of the Old Testament when he spoke of Scripture. And the Gospels, to which we can thank him for giving us the names of the authors. But outside of those, he names none of the rest of the NT as Scripture. He consistently referred to the Pauline and Apostolic letters as Tradition. And he also referred to other things which he said were necessary as Tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

Irenaeus was speaking of the Old Testament when he spoke of Scripture. And the Gospels, to which we can thank him for giving us the names of the authors. But outside of those, he names none of the rest of the NT as Scripture. He consistently referred to the Pauline and Apostolic letters as Tradition. And he also referred to other things which he said were necessary as Tradition.

Sounds like NT scripture to me from Irenaeus.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html?highlight=scripture,matthew,mark#highlightScriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.33093309 See 1 Tim. iii. 15, where these terms are used in reference to the Church. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews33103310 On this and similar statements in the Fathers, the reader may consult Dr. Roberts’s Discussions on the Gospels, in which they are fully criticised, and the Greek original of St. Matthew’s Gospel maintained. in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[SolomonVII]

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Irenaeus
It might be an exaggeration to say that the New Testament can be reconstructed out of the amount of times that Ireneaus quotes directly from it, but 626 times in one writing demonstrates well enough that no Bible-thumping preacher of today has anything on Ireneaus when it comes to basing their lessons in the written words of the apostles.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Irenaeus
www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml‎
Regarding the New Testament canon, one finds in Adversus Haereses ... According to the lists in [Hoh], Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses, quotes 626 times from ...

 

[sculleywr]

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Irenaeus
It might be an exaggeration to say that the New Testament can be reconstructed out of the amount of times that Ireneaus quotes directly from it, but 626 times in one writing demonstrates well enough that no Bible-thumping preacher of today has anything on Ireneaus when it comes to basing their lessons in the written words of the apostles.

-_- He did not call them Scriptures, however. Every single one of them quoted from the New Testament, from Irenaeus all the way to John Chrystostom. That does not mean that they were Sola Scriptura. Here is what Irenaeus, who you seem to imply was Sola Scriptura, said about ignoring Tradition:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.​

 

[sculleywr]

Sounds like NT scripture to me from Irenaeus.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html?highlight=scripture,matthew,mark#highlightScriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.33093309 See 1 Tim. iii. 15, where these terms are used in reference to the Church. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews33103310 On this and similar statements in the Fathers, the reader may consult Dr. Roberts’s Discussions on the Gospels, in which they are fully criticised, and the Greek original of St. Matthew’s Gospel maintained. in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Where is a canon listed here?

He may call certain portions Scripture, which is mostly the gospels, but he never gives us a definitive list. Several other canons existed, as well, some including the writings of Clement. Some excluded the writings of Peter.

By the time of Athanasius, there were five different canons known to historians today, which means there were possibly others. The first definitive list of our 27 we have is of Athanasius.

 

[SolomonVII]

-_- He did not call them Scriptures, however. Every single one of them quoted from the New Testament, from Irenaeus all the way to John Chrystostom. That does not mean that they were Sola Scriptura. Here is what Irenaeus, who you seem to imply was Sola Scriptura, said about ignoring Tradition:

When he speaks of tradition then, he is speaking of the New Testament, if that is the point that you are making.
Old Testament(Scripture) and New Testament(Tradition) are sufficient for discerning the Christian truth for sure

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.​

I very much believe in the church being an apostolic one too, and that the message of the actual apostles is to be preserved by the shepherds of the apostolic church.
Most certainly those teachings that are not verifiable as being from the apostles, and cannot be historically be shown to be so, are the ones that I am critical of.
To preserve the teaching of the apostles versus creating new teachings that derive from the 'spirit' of what the apostles did not actually teach is casting doubt on whether the apostles themselves—Peter, Paul John, and the rest— did or did not have indubitable, unsullied and pure knowledge of the Christian mystery.
It is a matter of syntax to me whether or not people opt to call the New Testament scripture or tradition. If by tradition people are meaning the New Testament teachings, there is no quarrel from me. It is then projecting the apostolic teachings into the ideas of a non-apostolic age that brings about my criticisms.

Apostolic teachings must be verified as coming from the apostles. That is what churchmen did when they created a canon. They said for example that the book of Revelation is from John, and therefore of the apostolic tradition, and that the Protoevengelium of James is not from the apostle James, and is therefore not of the apostolic tradition.
I fully agree with Ireneaus here that the apostle's teaching are pure, unsullied, and otherwise sufficient to where no other teachings about demiurges or what have you are required.

 

[sculleywr]

When he speaks of tradition then, he is speaking of the New Testament, if that is the point that you are making.
Old Testament(Scripture) and New Testament(Tradition) are sufficient for discerning the Christian truth for sure





I very much believe in the church being an apostolic one too, and that the message of the actual apostles is to be preserved by the shepherds of the apostolic church.
Most certainly those teachings that are not verifiable as being from the apostles, and cannot be historically be shown to be so, are the ones that I am critical of.
To preserve the teaching of the apostles versus creating new teachings that derive from the 'spirit' of what the apostles did not actually teach is casting doubt on whether the apostles themselves—Peter, Paul John, and the rest— did or did not have indubitable, unsullied and pure knowledge of the Christian mystery.
It is a matter of syntax to me whether or not people opt to call the New Testament scripture or tradition. If by tradition people are meaning the New Testament teachings, there is no quarrel from me. It is then projecting the apostolic teachings into the ideas of a non-apostolic age that brings about my criticisms.

Apostolic teachings must be verified as coming from the apostles. That is what churchmen did when they created a canon. They said for example that the book of Revelation is from John, and therefore of the apostolic tradition, and that the Protoevengelium of James is not from the apostle James, and is therefore not of the apostolic tradition.
I fully agree with Ireneaus here that the apostle's teaching are pure, unsullied, and otherwise sufficient to where no other teachings about demiurges or what have you are required.

Actually, apostolic origin was NOT the only measurement. Salvific significance was ALSO part of the canonizing process.

Also, the "pure, unsullied" portion was referring to the heretic's presumption that they had "purely and unsulliedly come to the full truth."

Now, neither Mark, nor Luke, are considered one of the 12. They are not of the 12 Apostles. Luke wasn't even of the 70 or of the 120 disciples in the Upper Room, as far as we know. So by that measurement, the canonizers would have left those two gospels and the book of Acts out of the Scriptures.

There was a lot more to the Scripture's canon than just Apostolic origin. The protoevangelion was of James, according to the earliest mentions we have of it. However, the PoJ does not offer anything new to the salvation message. Most of what he writes are of a historical nature.

 

[Albion]

That is especially true when you make up stuff for your argument.

OK. So you're showing us by example that you know what an ad hominem argument is.

 

[SolomonVII]

Actually, apostolic origin was NOT the only measurement. Salvific significance was ALSO part of the canonizing process.

Suffice it to say that apostolic origin plays a very important role in the creation of an apostlic canon

Also, the "pure, unsullied" portion was referring to the heretic's presumption that they had "purely and unsulliedly come to the full truth."

Ireneaus in other places talks about the virginity of scripture.
You are making a small point

Now, neither Mark, nor Luke, are considered one of the 12. They are not of the 12 Apostles. Luke wasn't even of the 70 or of the 120 disciples in the Upper Room, as far as we know. So by that measurement, the canonizers would have left those two gospels and the book of Acts out of the Scriptures.

I know all this.
Mark was Peter's travelling companion, and Luke was Paul's. I am not so anal about such things that I need to insist upon apostolic teaching meaning that these books were written by the actual hand of the apostle. Luke and Mark can and are considered to contain the actual apostolic teaching because they learned those teachings directly from the apostles.

There was a lot more to the Scripture's canon than just Apostolic origin. The protoevangelion was of James, according to the earliest mentions we have of it. However, the PoJ does not offer anything new to the salvation message. Most of what he writes are of a historical nature.

A lot more does not mean anything less either. It also does not mean anything other than authentic apostolic teaching.