Where Mary's seemingly deistic identity stems from...

[winsome]

1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

O good grief!

Now whose quoting out of context and twisting scripture!

Paul is saying you are not to go beyond what is written when interpreting scripture. In other words when you interpret scripture do not add your own ideas to what is actually there.

He is not saying do not go beyond scripture for other information. That would be silly since the NT had not yet been defined as scripture (or much of it even written).

He says he is applying it to himself. If that was the case he could say nothing except what was in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), which would make all his teaching invalid.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Silly me



God though his Church



Where do non-Christians come into this?



It's a big jump to claim that everything that is not in the canon of scripture is apocryphal and therefore of no value.

The early Church guarded the sacred mysteries very carefully – the liturgical rites for example were not written down but passed on orally. There is some primitive detail of the early Mass (for example) in the Didache (1st century), but the first person to give us much detail was Justin Martyr who set it down for the Emperor Antoninus Pius in about 155 AD.

One can only state that the canon of scripture was given through the Church if one believes that Israel is the church in light of the fact that the majority of the Bible is the Old Testament, which was canonized by the Jews long before Christians ever came onto the scene.

Non-Christians come into this because many non-Christian religions, such as Islam and Mormonism sincerely believe their books to be inspired scripture equal to the Bible.

The definition of apocryphal is non-canonical, so it is hardly a jump at all to state that anything outside of the canon of scriptural is apocryphal (non-canonical). Look it up in your dictionary.

As for value, all things have value. I have a library full of apocryphal books related to my chosen profession (architecture) and they are of great value in my work. One can debate the value of apocryphal religious literature, but Christianity does not deem it to be of equal value to canonical literature. In other words, Christianity recognizes a specific body of literature (the Bible) as being the Word of God.

There is no clear historical evidence of any oral tradition because, by definition, it was not written down and, therefore, did not survive. If there was such a tradition, one is forced to explain the differences among denominations such as the RCC and the EOC which claim to be the true guardians of that tradition. One of the great difficulties is that, like non-canonical literature, these traditions do not merely reinforce the teachings of the Bible, but are extraenous to them and sometimes actually contradict them.

 

[winsome]

One can only state that the canon of scripture was given through the Church if one believes that Israel is the church in light of the fact that the majority of the Bible is the Old Testament, which was canonized by the Jews long before Christians ever came onto the scene.

The Church decided to adopt it into its canon, and which version.

Non-Christians come into this because many non-Christian religions, such as Islam and Mormonism sincerely believe their books to be inspired scripture equal to the Bible.

I don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion though.

The definition of apocryphal is non-canonical, so it is hardly a jump at all to state that anything outside of the canon of scriptural is apocryphal (non-canonical). Look it up in your dictionary.

I did before I posted:
Collins Concise Dictionary
apocryphal 1. of questionable authenticity 2. (sometimes cap) of or like the Apocrypha 3. untrue counterfeit

Just because something is not defined as canonical doesn’t make it untrue, counterfeit or of questionable authenticity.

As for value, all things have value. I have a library full of apocryphal books related to my chosen profession (architecture) and they are of great value in my work. .

Not I would have thought if they were untrue, counterfeit or of questionable authenticity.

One can debate the value of apocryphal religious literature, but Christianity does not deem it to be of equal value to canonical literature. In other words, Christianity recognizes a specific body of literature (the Bible) as being the Word of God.

There is no clear historical evidence of any oral tradition because, by definition, it was not written down and, therefore, did not survive. If there was such a tradition, one is forced to explain the differences among denominations such as the RCC and the EOC which claim to be the true guardians of that tradition. One of the great difficulties is that, like non-canonical literature, these traditions do not merely reinforce the teachings of the Bible, but are extraenous to them and sometimes actually contradict them.

There is plenty of evidence of an oral tradition. As I pointed out scripture itself attests to it. Moreover much of it was eventually written down and survives in the writings of the early Fathers, in the liturgies of the Church, in the creeds (for example).

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church decided to adopt it into its canon, and which version.



I don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion though.



I did before I posted:
Collins Concise Dictionary
apocryphal 1. of questionable authenticity 2. (sometimes cap) of or like the Apocrypha 3. untrue counterfeit

Just because something is not defined as canonical doesn’t make it untrue, counterfeit or of questionable authenticity.



Not I would have thought if they were untrue, counterfeit or of questionable authenticity.



There is plenty of evidence of an oral tradition. As I pointed out scripture itself attests to it. Moreover much of it was eventually written down and survives in the writings of the early Fathers, in the liturgies of the Church, in the creeds (for example).

The fact is that the Old Testament canon predates its adoption by Christians. The Church did not revise or establish that canon, but merely recognized it as such. There were no differing "versions" nor are there today of the Old Testament canon. Although there have been some textual discussions, many people are very surprised to find that the Jewish Bible and the Christian Old Testament are identical.

I beg to differ regarding the similarities between non-Christian usage of extrabiblical sources and the use of extrabiblical sources within Christianity. It is relevant to study the arguments presented by these groups as the arguments bear some very close similarities.

Obviously we have two differing dictionaries. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, new edition renders apocryphal as 1. non-canonical 2. of or resembling the Apocrypha. I regret the misunderstanding.

Among the apocryphal writings excluded from the New Testament there are a variety. Some, such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans so closely follow canonical writings that they cannot be rejected on theological grounds. At the other end of the spectrum we have things such as the Gospel of Thomas which pose major contradictions with canonical books. In between there are some which merely add things which are not found in canonical books, such as stories about the childhood of Christ. So, not all apocryphal writing is untrue, counterfeit, or of questionable authenticity. Many of these lay claim to setting down in writing oral traditions given by the Apostles and were rejected because they did not have direct Apostilic provenance. One of the difficulties with this last subset is that the oral traditions as written frequently contradict not only canonical books, but other apocryphal books, as well. The classic example of this is the aforementioned Gospel of Thomas.

Although one can argue that an evidence for oral tradition lies no farther than these apocryphal writings, one must conclude that, at best, this oral tradition is disjointed and, at worst, it is seriously misleading and heretical.

 

[winsome]

The fact is that the Old Testament canon predates its adoption by Christians. The Church did not revise or establish that canon, but merely recognized it as such. There were no differing "versions" nor are there today of the Old Testament canon. Although there have been some textual discussions, many people are very surprised to find that the Jewish Bible and the Christian Old Testament are identical.

The Church adopted the Alexandrian Canon which protestants, over a 1,000 years later, decided to reject.

I beg to differ regarding the similarities between non-Christian usage of extrabiblical sources and the use of extrabiblical sources within Christianity. It is relevant to study the arguments presented by these groups as the arguments bear some very close similarities.

Well we'll just disagree on the relevance of that.

Obviously we have two differing dictionaries. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, new edition renders apocryphal as 1. non-canonical 2. of or resembling the Apocrypha. I regret the misunderstanding.

The Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary says of apocryphal:
1: of doubtful authenticity : spurious
2often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha
I'm surprised they have different definitions in different versions of their dictionary.

Among the apocryphal writings excluded from the New Testament there are a variety. Some, such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans so closely follow canonical writings that they cannot be rejected on theological grounds. At the other end of the spectrum we have things such as the Gospel of Thomas which pose major contradictions with canonical books. In between there are some which merely add things which are not found in canonical books, such as stories about the childhood of Christ. So, not all apocryphal writing is untrue, counterfeit, or of questionable authenticity. Many of these lay claim to setting down in writing oral traditions given by the Apostles and were rejected because they did not have direct Apostilic provenance. One of the difficulties with this last subset is that the oral traditions as written frequently contradict not only canonical books, but other apocryphal books, as well. The classic example of this is the aforementioned Gospel of Thomas.

Although one can argue that an evidence for oral tradition lies no farther than these apocryphal writings, one must conclude that, at best, this oral tradition is disjointed and, at worst, it is seriously misleading and heretical.

On the one hand you admit that much non-canonical writing is not untrue or spurious, yet then you dismiss all such writing as disjointed, seriously misleading and heretical

Moreover to continue to use the word apocryphal, which you accept means of doubtful authenticity, untrue or counterfeit, of any non-canonical means you are pre-judging it.

You are trying to make out that all oral tradition comes from questionable writings, whereas this is not the case as I have already indicated.

Yes there are writings which have been quite rightly rejected by the Church as not authentic and false but you cannot just dismiss all non-canonical writing as such.

 

[MamaZ]

The Church adopted the Alexandrian Canon which protestants, over a 1,000 years later, decided to reject.




Well we'll just disagree on the relevance of that.



The Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary says of apocryphal:
1: of doubtful authenticity : spurious
2often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha
I'm surprised they have different definitions in different versions of their dictionary.



On the one hand you admit that much non-canonical writing is not untrue or spurious, yet then you dismiss all such writing as disjointed, seriously misleading and heretical

Moreover to continue to use the word apocryphal, which you accept means of doubtful authenticity, untrue or counterfeit, of any non-canonical means you are pre-judging it.

You are trying to make out that all oral tradition comes from questionable writings, whereas this is not the case as I have already indicated.

Yes there are writings which have been quite rightly rejected by the Church as not authentic and false but you cannot just dismiss all non-canonical writing as such.

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. The thing with this is there is error in them and they are not scripture but religious writings.. We have many books on the bookshelves today that are the same..

 

[winsome]

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. The thing with this is there is error in them and they are not scripture but religious writings.. We have many books on the bookshelves today that are the same..

By the Council of Trent the Church had been using for over 1,000 years those books that Martin Luther (and others) wrongly excluded from the OT. The Council merely repeated what had been declared more than once in the previous 1,000 years in response to the Protestant rejection of the full canon of scripture.

They were in the Bible that Martin Luther used when a monk in the Church before becoming a heretic.

 

[MamaZ]

And? What does that prove other than men are fallable? Those other writings are not scripture. God is not the author of confusion neither is He a man that He should lie.. So these books that have error could not have come from God. Mere feeble and myths that Paul warns us about..

 

[Thekla]

as the LXX was in common use during the time of the apostles, and Timothy was part Greek, then Paul was referring to the LXX ...

 

[MamaZ]

as the LXX was in common use during the time of the apostles, and Timothy was part Greek, then Paul was referring to the LXX ...

Actually Paul was referring to the Hebrew texts not the greek. For these books were not even accepted by the Jewish cannon. They were rejected..

 

[Thekla]

Actually Paul was referring to the Hebrew texts not the greek. For these books were not even accepted by the Jewish cannon. They were rejected..

they were rejected well after the resurrection (one or two hundred years, IIRC, but you can check ... Timothy died around 80 AD, well after the rejection of the LXX)

 

[MamaZ]

they were rejected well after the resurrection (one or two hundred years, IIRC, but you can check ... Timothy died around 80 AD, well after the rejection of the LXX)

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

 

[winsome]

And? What does that prove other than men are fallable? Those other writings are not scripture. God is not the author of confusion neither is He a man that He should lie.. So these books that have error could not have come from God. Mere feeble and myths that Paul warns us about..

I take it you mean that Martin Luther's rejection of the full canon proves he was a fallible man. Well I would agree with that.

 

[MamaZ]

We all are fallable man.. LOL

 

[MamaZ]

why was II Esdras not included?

 

[winsome]

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Christians used the Septuagint, also called the LXX as their scripture. This was the translation into Greek which the Jews completed at Alexandria in the second century BC. The Council of Jamnia (90-95AD) was a Jewish council called after the fall of the Temple to counter the rise of Christianity. They removed several books from the OT commonly in use because they perceived them to be useful to Christians. However Christians continued to use the Septuagint.

The decision of the Jews at Jamnia was irrelevant to Christianity regarding the validity and inspiration of the full set of 47 OT books.

To suggest otherwise it to say:
1. We are bound by whatever the Jews decide regarding the OT - e.g. if they decided to remove more books we would have to remove them too.

2. For about 1500 years God abandoned his Church to error despite his promise that he would lead them into all truth.

 

[winsome]

why was II Esdras not included?

I believe it is - called Nehemiah

 

[MamaZ]

To suggest otherwise it to say:
1. We are bound by whatever the Jews decide regarding the OT - e.g. if they decided to remove more books we would have to remove them too.

2. For about 1500 years God abandoned his Church to error despite his promise that he would lead them into all truth.

Well who is it that held the Oracles of God? The Jews.

 

[winsome]

Well who is it that held the Oracles of God? The Jews.

And the Jews used the Septuagint.

And you have just ignored my points

 

[Thekla]

The best explanation for the larger collection of sacred writings in the LXX and later in the Christian canons is that the process of limiting the number of sacred scriptures in Palestine among the Jews began after the time when Judaism had a significant effect upon the Christian community...When the Jews of a Pharisaic bent met as a college at Jamnia ca. 90 CE and, among other things, discussed sacred literature, the Christians had already decided to use the wider collection of sacred Jewish writings they had inherited from pre-70 Judaism. George Anderson is no doubt correct, therefore, when he concludes that the third part of the Jewish canon, the Writings, was still imprecise before Jamnia and that it was left up to the churches to carry out the further definition of their Christian canon, and more specifically of the third part of the OT scriptures...

from here http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

(the author of the above citation is a professor of Biblical Studies at a Baptist Seminary)