Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Uh, they were included...IF the apocrypha was 'inspired' and it was catholic bishops that put the Word of God together...WHY didn't they include them?? I mean come on...a bunch of bishops...and they couldn't get them in the Word?? MUST be a reason for it.
consideration maybe, but not to build a whole theology and dogma on.I wonder why some ppl here reject this book out of hand just because the Church did not included it in the canon?
The Church that didn't include it is the same Church who says it is for our consideration?
So I'm confused... on what are we basing this rejection on?
The Church didn't verify the inspiration of this book but that does not mean that it is a book that is to be condemned. It is there for our consideration.
The Church never condemned it as she did the Gnostic books. And we agree with the Church's rule on those, but not this book? That it is for our consideration?
Again, I'm confused?
really? SO, how come they aren't in my Bible?? OH let me guess..Luther took them out...yeah...okey dokey. MUST of been a REASON!Uh, they were included...
mhm...ok. And on that note..I bid you all blessings and God's richest blessings.The Word is Tradition, both oral as well as written.
So it is your contention that the Canon was compiled not to convey Truth but for a nice Church service?It is not Holy Scripture... but it is authorative.
We know that St. James wrote it.
You need to ask... What was the purpose of gathering these books and making them canon? What did that mean to the men who were gathering them? Why did they want such a list? Was this "ALL" that they accepted as being true? To the exclusion of all the other document that were submitted?
In truth the books that were set aside as canon were done so, because they desired all "Liturgical Services" within the Chruches to be the same throughout the calendar year. From one church to the next scriptures would be read every week in the same exact order with the same exact explainations to go along with them.
Many books were rejected for being false. But please leave that up to the same authority that said which ones were and which were not. How is it that we, standing here 2000 years later have the audacity to suppose that we know better than The Churches (plural) that incorperated these books into canon in the first place.
As an example... "The protoevangelical of James" was always said to be true, meanwhile "The gnostic gospel of Barnabas" was always held to be false. There are other examples... such as The Didache, said to be true, and by the hands of the Apostles themselves... but they were not used in the Liturgical services of Church through the calendar year. Therefore they did not need to be included as canon.
The canon was not created for people to read... people couldn't read. The canon was created as a set of books to be used in common among all the Churches for Liturgical Services... thats all.
We tend to think that being part of the canon meant that these were the books that were true and anything outside this scope of books was false information. Not so.
Forgive me...
Of course we disagree that it was indeed either the RCC or the Orthodox Church that was the New Testament Church. Obviously I disagree but that is not the subject of this thread.I wonder why some ppl here reject this book out of hand just because the Church did not included it in the canon?
The Church that didn't include it is the same Church who says it is for our consideration?
So I'm confused... on what are we basing this rejection on?
The Church didn't verify the inspiration of this book but that does not mean that it is a book that is to be condemned. It is there for our consideration.
The Church never condemned it as she did the Gnostic books. And we agree with the Church's rule on those, but not this book? That it is for our consideration?
Again, I'm confused?
consideration maybe, but not to build a whole theology and dogma on.
From the Ascension of Isaiah chapter 11:
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ascension.html)
This apochriphal text is probably the only source about the birth of Jesus that is indipendent from the Gospels - very older than the ProtoGospel of James.
The chapters 6-11 date on about the 70ad for some scolars, according others (more probable) they date about the 120ad, surely before the 135ad.
So it is your contention that the Canon was compiled not to convey Truth but for a nice Church service?
Sorry don't agree.
But thanks for conversation anyway.
I'm sorry but the Liturgy is FAR from what you know as a church service.So it is your contention that the Canon was compiled not to convey Truth but for a nice Church service?
Sorry don't agree.
But thanks for conversation anyway.
It's always been my understanding that the NT was canonized to protect the faithful from the Gnostic books?I think your missing what I am saying. Perhaps even purposly.
All Services were to be in Truth of course, they were to be consistant as well.
Adding a book to canon is not the "mark of Truth", yet all those that were included as canon are certainly true. For who would have added a false docment to canon?
Canon was made for the purpose of consistancy of services among the Churches.
Forgive me...
buddy you don't know me or anything about me. LAY off. I am fine thank you. Just because I don't jump and ohh and ahhh over everything you say and take it at face value doesn't mean a thing.
So your 'tradition' is the 'books' that even the world couldn't hold? I doubt it. I am sure Jesus did say and do alot of things not in the Word. IF God saw fit for it to be there, it would be. What is important is what books DID get put in. I know you value tradition over the Word, and that is fine if it works for you. I don't. It works for me. I have been saved a long time 25+ years..and so far, I am doing fantastic!! Shoot, should of been at our communion service this morning! It was AWESOME! God was amazing.
I come from a liturgical Church I do understand what it is purported to be. (Orthodox) I simply reject that it is what it is purported to be.I'm sorry but the Liturgy is FAR from what you know as a church service.
I'm sorry but the Liturgy is FAR from what you know as a church service.
I understand that is the Orthodox understanding. I simply believe it is wrong.I think your missing what I am saying. Perhaps even purposely. I hope not.
All Services were to be in Truth of course, they were to be consistant as well.
Adding a book to canon is not the "mark of Truth", yet all those that were included as canon are certainly true. For who would have added a false docment to canon?
Canon was made for the purpose of consistancy of services among the Churches.
Forgive me...
I come from a liturgical Church I do understand what it is purported to be. (Orthodox) I simply reject that it is what it is purported to be.
I understand that is the Orthodox understanding. I simply believe it is wrong.
Well if you know what the Liturgy of the Word is then I do not understand why you do not agree.I come from a liturgical Church I do understand what it is purported to be. (Orthodox) I simply reject that it is what it is purported to be.
Um...slightly judging me aren't you?? In fact, I am not full of hate. I hate when GOD's word gets twisted to meet your tradition and thinking. BUT you are free to think what you want. BUT you might want to reconsider judging me...isn't that against your rules? YOU don't know my heart. Thanks for your input. Have a good one!You are correct!
I only know what you have shown me here... and that has been plenty.
"Lay off" you say.
No problem, this will be my last post to you.
As far as you doing fantastic. Your attitude is telling enough about the condition of your heart. You are obviously full of hate.
Take care now.
Forgive me...
Well that's a first...I understand that is the Orthodox understanding. I simply believe it is wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?