The order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.

[The Liturgist]

This is essentially correct from a chronological perspective. However, before Protestant members are needlessly alarmed, it must be stressed that once the Gospels and the canonical Pauline epistles existed, the early Church used them as the center of Holy Tradition, and admitted no doctrine contrary to them, and this remains the approach of the Eastern churches.

I should add, also, once the canon of the New Testament was fixed by St. Athanasius in the mid 4th century, the rest of the New Testament as well; everyone always agreed on the four Gospels and other parts of it but it was St. Athanasius, the defender of the doctrine of the Trinity against the heretic Arius, who also defined for us which books definitively are and are not canon, in a manner that the entire church would accept for the New Testament.

His proposed Old Testament canon was less successful, and indeed the ancient churches never agreed with each other on exactly which books were canonical and which ones were not, but the relative importance of some books that some people regard as deuterocanon might surprise people.

For example, the early church and the Orthodox church have always greatly valued the book known as Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon, which was compiled from various sources around 60 BC, and which is remarkable, because chapter 2 is a stunning Messianic prophecy in the manner of the Songs of the Suffering Servant from Isaiah, and chapter 3 expresses what would be the Christian doctrine of eternal life. This book thus became more important than, for example, Numbers, which while interesting, holy and important, is not arguably as important to Christians as some of the other portions of the Pentateuch, which are doctrinally vital, for example, Genesis and the first half of Exodus, and parts of Deuteronomy, the canticles of Moses.

 

[Clare73]

I should add, also, once the canon of the New Testament was fixed by St. Athanasius in the mid 4th century, the rest of the New Testament as well; everyone always agreed on the four Gospels and other parts of it but it was St. Athanasius, the defender of the doctrine of the Trinity against the heretic Arius, who also defined for us which books definitively are and are not canon, in a manner that the entire church would accept for the New Testament.

His proposed Old Testament canon was less successful, and indeed the ancient churches never agreed with each other on exactly which books were canonical which ones were not, but the relative importance of some books that some people regard as deuterocanon might surprise people.

However, was not Holy Spirit inspiration a criteria?
Compared to the rest of the OT, those books called apocrypha, except for Sirach, to me lack that majesty of style found in the other books.

For example, the early church and the Orthodox church have always greatly valued the book known as Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon, which was compiled from various sources around 60 BC, and which is remarkable, because chapter 2 is a stunning Messianic prophecy in the manner of the Songs of the Suffering Servant from Isaiah, and chapter 3 expresses what would be the Christian doctrine of eternal life. This book thus became more important than, for example, Numbers, which while interesting, holy and important, is not arguably as important to Christians as some of the other portions of the Pentateuch, which are doctrinally vital, for example, Genesis and the first half of Exodus, and parts of Deuteronomy, the canticles of Moses.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

However, was not Holy Spirit inspiration a criteria?

Not really, it was not something that was immediately obvious to most readers. For example, the Didache was considered inspired by many, as were the letters of Clement, while Revelation was considered uninspired by many.

 

[The Liturgist]

However, was not Holy Spirit inspiration a criteria?
Compared to the rest of the OT, those books called apocrypha, except for Sirach, to me lack that majesty of style found in the other books.

Holy Spirit inspiration is a criteria but people disagree on what is and is not inspired. For example, John Calvin regarded Baruch as inspired protocanon whereas Martin Luther wanted to delete Esther and St. Athanasius regarded it as deuterocanon. And the Ethiopians admit 1 Enoch, which the Holy Apostle Jude appears to quote in his epistle, and also Jubilees, which no one else, even the Coptic Orthodox Church they were historically an autonomous part of, regards as canonical. Which is interesting, in that among the Oriental Orthodox there are five different scriptural canons, including two Ethiopic canons, and the Copts, who appointed the presiding bishop of the Ethiopian church, had their own canon (which I believe, and @dzheremi can probably confirm, is the same as the Greek Orthodox one used by the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Coptic Orthodox church’s Chalcedonian counterpart.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not really, it was not something that was immediately obvious to most readers. For example, the Didache was considered inspired by many, as were the letters of Clement, while Revelation was considered uninspired by many.

Actually the primary consideration motivating St. Athanasius with regards to the New Testament was Apostolic provenance. This is why he allowed non-liturgical use of the Shepherd of Hermas for moral edification of catechumens but exclused it from the canon, because it was a Patristic rather than Apostolic writing.

 

[BobRyan]

Saint Luke Gospel is an excellent example of the process. He writes:

Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke 1:1-4 GNB

Christ was inspired and worked the works of God.
Tradition passed down those accounts
The Holy Spirit recovered any lost info in tradition to get a more accurate account of the truly inspired work of Christ which was the start point

The same is true in the case of Adam and Eve and creation
The same is true of Moses' encounter with God at the burning bush , followed by word-of-mouth passing down the info - followed by writing the account down with inspired insight.

 

[Clare73]

Christ was inspired and worked the works of God.
Tradition passed down those accounts
The Holy Spirit recovered any lost info in tradition to get a more accurate account of the truly inspired work of Christ which was the start point

Christ was God (Jn 1:1,14), not "inspired,"
he was the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God (Lk 1:35) begotten (conceived) (Mt 1:20, Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 Jn 4:9, Heb 11:17) of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35) in the womb of Mary and, therefore, human as well as divine, possessing the two natures in his one person.

The same is true in the case of Adam and Eve and creation.
The same is true of Moses' encounter with God at the burning bush , followed by word-of-mouth passing down the info - followed by writing the account down with inspired insight.

Adam, Eve, and Moses were not God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It remains true and it remains in the gospel according to saint Luke, that first came the experiences and spoken passing on of the experiences and later came inspiration with the making of holy scripture.

 

[Clare73]

It remains true and it remains in the gospel according to saint Luke, that first came the experiences and spoken passing on of the experiences and later came inspiration with the making of holy scripture.

Agreed. . .

It is true in regard to Luke, however, it is not true in regard to Matthew, John and Paul.

 

[The Liturgist]

Agreed. . .

It is true in regard to Luke, however, it is not true in regard to Matthew, John and Paul.

Except there is the possibility that our Greek Gospel according to Matthew, which we know is not a translation, may have been a rewrite and revision of an earlier lost Aramaic version, since many Church Fathers said that gospel was originally written in Aramaic. And it is possible this rewrite was done by someone other than St. Matthew.

Now liberal scholars with Q source hypothesis insist on Markan priority and say that Matthew depends on St. Mark plus a lost “sayings Gospel” called Q, which was bolstered by the discovery of the almost synoptic, yet still corrupt, Gospel according to Thomas. I reject the idea this had to have been the case.

But whether St. Matthew or someone else rewrote his Gospel in Greek, assuming the church fathers are correct and it was not originally written in Greek, it is entirely possible that St. Matthew the Apostle or the “re-writer” was reminded by other Synoptics written since his Aramaic original of specific events and provided his recollection of them, and it is even possible that, like the Gospel of St. John, some material might have been intended to correct omissions or even a perceived error.

As a hypothetical example, if St. Matthew thought the genealogy in Luke-Acts was in error, not false, but perhaps there was a difference of opinion over which bloodline to follow (consider Rabinnical Jews, the successors to the Pharisees, rely on matrilineal hereditary information, for example, in determining whether someone is a Jew, whereas other ancient surviving forms of Judaism such as the Karaites, who reject the Mishnah, Talmud, etc, which are the Oral Torah of the Pharisees in writing, theoretically, rely on patrilineal succession, and also perhaps one of the two tables of ancestors of our Lord traced the ancestry of our Lord’s adoptive father and the other traced the ancestry of His actual mother - a difference of opinion could also explain why such a variation was not noted, since depending on your perspective only one genealogy might seem correct, even if in reality both were factual.

Ultimately we don’t know, and it is not important, but it is interesting, much like the unknown question of where the Adultery Pericope that is an interpolation into St. John’s Gospel originally came from.

 

[Clare73]

Except there is the possibility that our Greek Gospel according to Matthew, which we know is not a translation, may have been a rewrite and revision of an earlier lost Aramaic version, since many Church Fathers said that gospel was originally written in Aramaic. And it is possible this rewrite was done by someone other than St. Matthew.

Now liberal scholars with Q source hypothesis insist on Markan priority and say that Matthew depends on St. Mark plus a lost “sayings Gospel” called Q, which was bolstered by the discovery of the almost synoptic, yet still corrupt, Gospel according to Thomas. I reject the idea this had to have been the case.

But whether St. Matthew or someone else rewrote his Gospel in Greek, assuming the church fathers are correct and it was not originally written in Greek, it is entirely possible that St. Matthew the Apostle or the “re-writer” was reminded by other Synoptics written since his Aramaic original of specific events and provided his recollection of them, and it is even possible that, like the Gospel of St. John, some material might have been intended to correct omissions or even a perceived error.

As a hypothetical example, if St. Matthew thought the genealogy in Luke-Acts was in error, not false, but perhaps there was a difference of opinion over which bloodline to follow (consider Rabinnical Jews, the successors to the Pharisees, rely on matrilineal hereditary information, for example, in determining whether someone is a Jew, whereas other ancient surviving forms of Judaism such as the Karaites, who reject the Mishnah, Talmud, etc, which are the Oral Torah of the Pharisees in writing, theoretically, rely on patrilineal succession, and also perhaps

one of the two tables of ancestors of our Lord traced the ancestry of our Lord’s adoptive father and the other traced the ancestry of His actual mother - a difference of opinion could also explain why such a variation was not noted, since depending on your perspective only one genealogy might seem correct, even if in reality both were factual.

Are not both correct and important?

Matthew gives us the kingly line of Jesus through Solomon (by Joseph, his legal father, making Jesus legally of that line of David), while Luke gives us the blood line through Nathan (by Mary, making him actually of the line of David), thereby covering all the bases necessary to be the Messiah, of the kingly line of David.

Ultimately we don’t know, and it is not important, but it is interesting, much like the unknown question of where the Adultery Pericope that is an interpolation into St. John’s Gospel originally came from.

 

[Reginald Taylor Jr]

Matthew 7:12
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Ecclesiastes 7:8
King James Version​

​

8 Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.

Psalm 31:2

King James Version​

2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

Isaiah 43:2

King James Version​

2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
Jesus Christ is King of Kings Lord of Lords

 

[Reginald Taylor Jr]

I believe through any water, fire or flame. Can I sow this to reap?

 

[The Liturgist]

Are not both correct and important?

Matthew gives us the kingly line of Jesus through Solomon (by Joseph, his legal father, making Jesus legally of that line of David), while Luke gives us the blood line through Nathan (by Mary, making him actually of the line of David), thereby covering all the bases necessary to be the Messiah, of the kingly line of David.

Of course both are correct and important! But it is within the realm of possibility that perhaps St. Matthew, or whoever rewrote his Gospel in Greek, viewed St. Luke the Evangelist charitably but rightly regarded this information and other specifics we can assume lost Aramaic Matthew had such as its references to prophecy so as to rewrite the entire Gospel in Greek (as opposed to merely translating it), and in the course of the rewrite it was populated with information that largely overlaps with what is in Luke and Mark, much of which it probably had before, but some of which was probably lacking, particularly if Aramaic Matthew is the same text that some Church Fathers later quoted in translation and referred to as The Gospel of the Hebrews, which was a legitimate text which is now lost (which I think probably was Aramaic Matthew, based on remarks by St. Irenaeus of Lyons), unlike the heretical Gospel of the Ebionites.

 

[The Liturgist]

Matthew 7:12​

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.



Ecclesiastes 7:8

King James Version​

​

8 Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.

Psalm 31:2

King James Version​

2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

Isaiah 43:2

King James Version​

2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
Jesus Christ is King of Kings Lord of Lords

Just so you know, your posts are unreadable when one is using the dark theme for the forums, because you are manually selecting the black color, which you don’t need to do, since if someone has the light theme selected, your text if left without a specified color will be black, automatically. For reasons of reducing eye strain I have to use the dark theme.

 

[Reginald Taylor Jr]

I believe through any water, fire or flame. Can I sow this to reap?

I apologize it might be better to ask God then the question with no answer. In mean time and beyond I have faith and believe now to reap this sowing of mine. GOD word has to be done in my life