What has been added to scripture?

[GreekOrthodox]

From 375? I thought the first ecumenical council took place in Acts 15?

The first titled Ecumenical Council was held in Nicea in 325, primarily to deal with the Arian controversy. It was attended by 318 bishops (at least recorded in the liturgy) although roughly 1,800 had been invited by the Emperor Constantine.

 

[Athanasius377]

We dont have a systematic theology like western churches so you're not going to find a version of Aquinas Summa Theologica. If you want a basic overview, I recommend Kallistos Ware "The Orthodox Church" (covers history and basic theology) and "The Orthodox Way" (which covers EO thought). For an online summary, The Orthodox Faith by Fr. Hopko of blessed memory.

Ahh. Fr Hopko. I heard he passed some years ago but wasn’t sure. I used to listen to his podcast on Ancient Faith Radio regarding the canons of the ecumenical councils. He gave a really accessible commentary on the same as I recall.

 

[Athanasius377]

I think you would benefit from the more recent scholarship of EO writer Constantinou, who demonstrates that Revelation was accepted in the East very early, and only later doubted, largely on account of Eusebius's doubts concerning the work.

Thanks. I didn’t know she did a volume in the ancient fathers set I have. I am aware that Revelation was accepted early in Asia (in Asia Minor) but began to be rejected due to the montanast heresy later in the second century. Which I why I said is was rather late in the canon in the East overall. Also because of this that is the reason that there are no reading from Revelation in the Three liturgies of the EO church. At least that is my recollection.

 

[Athanasius377]

We dont have a systematic theology like western churches so you're not going to find a version of Aquinas Summa Theologica. If you want a basic overview, I recommend Kallistos Ware "The Orthodox Church" (covers history and basic theology) and "The Orthodox Way" (which covers EO thought). For an online summary, The Orthodox Faith by Fr. Hopko of blessed memory.

This is true in my experience. The Orthodox do not do theology the way we do in the west. In fact the whole theological center is different. Not only the answers but the questions as well. We in the west find this at time to exasperating and sometimes the term neo-Platonism is thrown around. Which isn’t fair nor true.

 

[Athanasius377]

I have no idea. I am going by the quotation given by Athanasius377 above, which makes that claim. Since he is EO and since I heard (or thought I heard) that some EOs accept the same 27 books of the NT as RCs and Protestants, I assume there is some inter EO disagreement. If not, perhaps you could clarify.

I think you thought I was Orthodox because of my avatar. Athanasius is my hero in the faith. Even Luther would agree with me there. A man starring down the Empire for the sake of the Gospel on multiple occasions is a hero in my book. I chose him because I pray I will have the same courage when it’s my turn to witness to the faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The first titled Ecumenical Council was held in Nicea in 325, primarily to deal with the Arian controversy. It was attended by 318 bishops (at least recorded in the liturgy) although roughly 1,800 had been invited by the Emperor Constantine.

That’s both interesting and strange at the same time. I’ve always heard Orthodox members refer to Acts 15 as the first ecumenical council. I just assumed it would’ve been recorded as such.

 

[timtams]

Thanks. I didn’t know she did a volume in the ancient fathers set I have. I am aware that Revelation was accepted early in Asia (in Asia Minor) but began to be rejected due to the montanast heresy later in the second century. Which I why I said is was rather late in the canon in the East overall. Also because of this that is the reason that there are no reading from Revelation in the Three liturgies of the EO church. At least that is my recollection.

It's in her commentary on Andreas, which I think is the one you have. I would pretty much agree with you only I think she's right to argue that it was widely accepted in the East until the time the Eusebius, and that it was the latter's influence which caused it to be set aside.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

We dont have a systematic theology like western churches so you're not going to find a version of Aquinas Summa Theologica. If you want a basic overview, I recommend Kallistos Ware "The Orthodox Church" (covers history and basic theology) and "The Orthodox Way" (which covers EO thought). For an online summary, The Orthodox Faith by Fr. Hopko of blessed memory.

Thank You,
Daniel

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[Daniel Marsh]

rth

pray for wisdom, I can use all of that I can get.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The

The Church was given authority to bind and loose by Christ

Only what had already been bound in heaven and what had already been loosed. Not new things.

"Whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven" - that is the grammar of the Greek though "will have been bound" is sufficient enough to show that the action originated in heaven not on earth. The tense and mood is not future, as in whatever you bind on earth will BE bound in heaven.

Binding refers to a rabbinical practice under the old law of interpreting commands. One rabbi might "bind" the sabbath to a higher standard and another might loosen it.

Thus the language of the Pharisees who accused Jesus not of "breaking" the sabbath, but "loosening" it.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Only what had already been bound in heaven and what had already been loosed. Not new things.

"Whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven" - that is the grammar of the Greek though "will have been bound" is sufficient enough to show that the action originated in heaven not on earth. The tense and mood is not future, as in whatever you bind on earth will BE bound in heaven.

Binding refers to a rabbinical practice under the old law of interpreting commands. One rabbi might "bind" the sabbath to a higher standard and another might loosen it.

Thus the language of the Pharisees who accused Jesus not of "breaking" the sabbath, but "loosening" it.

Matthew 16:19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.

 

[The Liturgist]

The first titled Ecumenical Council was held in Nicea in 325, primarily to deal with the Arian controversy. It was attended by 318 bishops (at least recorded in the liturgy) although roughly 1,800 had been invited by the Emperor Constantine.

Indeed, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is more properly called the Apostolic Council. But I think it has authority equivalent to that of the seven councils received by the Church as Ecumenical (merely titling a council Ecumenical of course does not make it so; in this way Mark of Ephesus was able to defeat the Council of Florence).

 

[The Liturgist]

This is true in my experience. The Orthodox do not do theology the way we do in the west. In fact the whole theological center is different. Not only the answers but the questions as well. We in the west find this at time to exasperating and sometimes the term neo-Platonism is thrown around. Which isn’t fair nor true.

I personally really like the Eastern theological method. I am an admirer of John Wesley because he was able to import some concepts of Eastern theology, like Theosis, into the West (as Entire Sanctification).

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually it is not.

Rejection of apostolic authorship led to severe questions about canonicity. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the early fourth century, was apparently influenced by the work of Dionysius and suggested that the book was written by a John the Elder of whom Papias spoke. Others in the East who questioned the work include Cyril of Jerusalem (315–86), Chrysostom (347–407), and Theodoret (386–457). It was not included among the canonical books at the Council of Laodicea (ca. 360) and was subsequently omitted from the Peshitta, the official Bible in Syriac-speaking Christian lands in the fifth century.
In the West from the second century on the Apocalypse had won wide acceptance. In time the East began to reverse its earlier negative position. In the fourth century Athanasius in Alexandria endorsed it without hesitation. The Third Council of Carthage (397) listed the Apocalypse as canonical and appropriate for public reading in services. When the decrees of Laodicea and Carthage were ratified at the Third Council of Constantinople (680), the Apocalypse received formal acceptance as NT scripture in the eastern church. This favorable opinion was due in part to the first Greek commentaries on Revelation, which appeared about the sixth century.



Mounce, R. H. (1997). The Book of Revelation (pp. 23–24). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

The Western editions of the Peshitta, used by the Syriac Orthodox, have the full 27 book canon including the Apocalypse (Revelations). This is probably due to Coptic influence, as Pope Athanasius was the predecessor of Popes Cyril and Dioscorus, and the Syriac and Coptic churches were always as close as possible within the Oriental Orthodox communion.

The Eastern editions, used by the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, and the Chaldean Catholics, do lack Revelations and several other books, but the Assyrian Church of the East and certainly the Chaldeans regard them as canonical (St. Mary’s Assyrian Cathedral in Tarzana, Los Angeles even had a bible study on Revelations a few years ago). The Ancient Church of the East might be a different story...they still use the Julian Calendar and are more traditional.

 

[The Liturgist]

We dont have a systematic theology like western churches so you're not going to find a version of Aquinas Summa Theologica. If you want a basic overview, I recommend Kallistos Ware "The Orthodox Church" (covers history and basic theology) and "The Orthodox Way" (which covers EO thought). For an online summary, The Orthodox Faith by Fr. Hopko of blessed memory.

I do love the books you mentioned by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. However, I am not a fan of Fr. Hopko (memory eternal); I don’t like his style of writing. Fr. Alexander Schmemann however was amazing.

There is some material in the world of EO theology which I would argue constitutes systematic theology, perhaps not on the level of Karl Barth, but certainly, EO theology expressed comprehensively. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, translated by Fr. Seraphim Rose, both of blessed memory; it sets out Eastern Orthodox doctrine in a systematic manner, in my opinion. There is also a slightly less scholarly and more polemical work that is conceptually similiar, The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church by Fr. Michael Azkoul.

I would also suggest that the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith in St. John of Damascus is as close as one will get to a systematic theology in the pre-scholastic era. Indeed, I have to confess I am not even sure why Thomas Aquinas even bothered with the Summa, given the vast material in the Fount of Wisdom of St. John (which includes the Exact Exposition). There is also De Fide, by St. Epiphanius.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

cookie break