Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
 Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Isthmian wrote: | | My badly made point Theo was that man has added or taken away or decided which texts should be part and which should not. Surely all texts should be available to read and not only those selected by whatever council or group of men. |
Well, all the texts are available online. Does this mean that you have read the Book of Tobit for example? Or Maccabees? Or Psalm 151?
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
watcher
Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Covenanter said:
| Quote: | | I don't think there is any doubt that the Apostles knew they were writing with God's authority - writing Scripture by God's inspiration. Paul writes of "all Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3 |
I agree with the first part of your observations here, Cov, as my previous post concerning the apostle Paul's claim to divine inspiration confirms (as do your quotes from various NT epistles). However, I cannot agree that Paul and the other authors of the NT epistles were conscious of writing scripture per se as there is no indication that they believed that their letters to various churches would at some point be compiled into a fixed canon as were the writings which constitute the OT canon. Indeed, I would say that there is scriptural evidence for the assertion that Paul believed that Christ would return within his own lifetime - or certainly within a 'generation', or forty years from his first coming - in which case there would be no need in his view to fix a new canon of scripture for future generations.
As for the "all Scripture" of 2 Timothy 3:16, I must concur with those who say that Paul can only have been referring to the existing scripture of his day, which is to say the Hebrew scriptures, of course. However, it goes without saying that we can apply Paul's words to the posterior NT canon with hindsight given the divine authority and inspiration behind those writings, as you well point out.
_________________
"For with Thee is the fountain of life;
In Thy light we see light."
- Psalm 36:9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isthmian
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 142
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -theophilus- wrote: | | Isthmian wrote: | | My badly made point Theo was that man has added or taken away or decided which texts should be part and which should not. Surely all texts should be available to read and not only those selected by whatever council or group of men. |
Well, all the texts are available online. Does this mean that you have read the Book of Tobit for example? Or Maccabees? Or Psalm 151? |
Many things are available on line but that is not the point of my premise. I have read some and not others. There are books in the Bible I haven't read yet. It is immaterial to my point that all such texts should be in the one book and not just those that have been judged right or wrong by various churches.
_________________
Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words. — St. Francis of Assisi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1367
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It seems that watcher thinks along similar lines to me! His point about Paul differing from Scofield, Calvin, Darby (and the rest of that Gang) because his personal encounter with Jesus and subsequent commission or calling was on a different level to anyone in The Gang is precisely what I would have gone onto say in response to what you wrote Sis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isthmian
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 142
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread went from the original post of Theos' regarding changes to the Canon into other possible texts that were not added at all.
I don't think therefore that this is too far off topic.
I have recently been reading about a 'Gospel According to Peter'. This is the Peter of the disciples, on whom I will build my church, Peter.
This 'book' was apparently referred to by Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch in 190A.D.; Origen an historian in 253A.D.; Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea in 300A.D.; Theodoret in 455 in his Religious History said that the Nazarenes used The Gospel According to Peter; and Justin Martyr includes the Memoirs of Peter in his "Apostolic Memoirs".
So it would seem that scholars have always recognised that such a document existed in the early centuries after Christ.
Rev D. H. Stanton in the Journal of Theological Studies, commenting on Justin Martyr's ancient testimony says: "The conclusion with which we are confronted is that The Gospel of Peter once held a place of honour, comparable to that assigned to the Four Gospels, perhaps even higher than some of them...."
Having just read this book, in general the story of the trial and crucifixion that is revealed follows that of the canonical gospels, in detail it is very different. This account is freer from constraint, and with the events between the burial and resurrection of our Lord, it is much more detailed than anything in the canonical accounts.
Why then was it omitted and by whose authority?
Surely, the account of Peter cannot be wrong in detail enough for someone in the fourth century, to dismiss what was seen as an important account in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries?
Theo said earlier in this thread in answer to a previous post of mine,
| Quote: | Surely that would be an argument in favour of the longer OT scriptures? I'm not actually sure if you're arguing for a 66 book canon or not to be honest.
The longer canon has always been used, and still is today. The 66 book canon was only compiled 500 or so years ago. If you think all scripture is given then I should imagine you'd use the longer Greek or Russian canons. |
The fact is that I am in favour of having access to all scripture and not just those that are deemed acceptable by this council or that.
Theo started this thread with
| Quote: | If you believe scripture is a revelation from God, then we want the full revelation.
My reason for starting this thread is not just for the sake of saying Protestants are wrong for removing books from the Bible (though I think it was mistaken), but what is it that decides canonicity? |
There you have it. I want the full revelation.
_________________
Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words. — St. Francis of Assisi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're rather overstating the case for the Gospel of St. Peter in order to make your point. Who decided to leave the Peter out of the canon? The Church, as a whole (which is not the same as "the Church, unanimously"). I don't think you'll find any persecutions or "book-burnings" involving Peter's Gospel. It was used by some groups, for a while, but in time the book fell into disuse. And to such an extent that noone though even to preserve it (as no complete copy still exists today).
I think to believe in God, and to believe in the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the body of Christ, you have to believe that the Gospel would have survived if it were truly as inspired as is to be believed.
The problem is, if you don't accept the Church's decisions (taken tentatively, over a long period of time, and amid much discussion and prayer) on the canon of scripture, there really is no alternative
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isthmian
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 142
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wasn't trying to over state the case rather, I was trying to establish that this wasn't one of the gnostic texts that had been dismissed, but a valid document by a reputable author.
A copy was found in 1846 I think but while I go along with the no book burnings concept, the RCC as it became wasn't averse to forcefully destroying texts it didn't aprove of particularly if there was an effort on the part of some to keep the text alive.
| -theophilus- wrote: | | The problem is, if you don't accept the Church's decisions (taken tentatively, over a long period of time, and amid much discussion and prayer) on the canon of scripture, there really is no alternative |
I think that is the problem. The 'church', i.e. the physical organisation as averse to the church of believers, gives me little faith that they did things amid much discussion and prayer. The church has ever been first and formost a political organisation with it's own agenda and a ruthless ability to destroy anything and anyone who stepped in it's path.
_________________
Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words. — St. Francis of Assisi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Isthmian wrote: | I wasn't trying to over state the case rather, I was trying to establish that this wasn't one of the gnostic texts that had been dismissed, but a valid document by a reputable author.
|
Actually no. While some local churches did possess the Gospel of Peter, and held it to be inspired (the proof being that it was read out during the Liturgy), the majority of the Church never did.
You gave a list of notable names that mentioned the Gospel of Peter, including Eusibius. Now, it just so happens that I (quite coincidentally) bought Eusibius' history of the church at the weekend, so I looked up exactly what he writes about the Gospel of Peter:
| Quote: | | We, brethren, receive Peter and the other Apostles even as Christ; but the writings that go falsely by their names we, in our experience, reject, knowing that such things as these we never received. When I was with you I supposed you all to be attached to the right faith; and so without going through the gospel put forward under Peter's name, I said, `If this is all that makes your petty quarrel, why then let it be read.' But now that I have learned from information given me that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I will make a point of coming to you again: so, brethren, expect me speedily. Knowing then, brethren, of what kind of heresy was Marcion... From others who used this very gospel— I mean from the successors of those who started it, whom we call Docetae, for most of its ideas are of their school— from them, I say, I borrowed it, and was able to go through it, and to find that most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Saviour, but some things were additions." |
But here's the thing. The above writing is Eusebius quoting Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch in 190A.D you earlier mentioned. So not only does the earliest source mentioning the Gospel of Peter condem it as heretical, but so does Eusebius by quoting him.
| Isthmian wrote: | | I think that is the problem. The 'church', i.e. the physical organisation as averse to the church of believers, gives me little faith that they did things amid much discussion and prayer. |
We can take an example from the first ecumenical council:
| Quote: | Achilleus, a great hierarch and miracle-worker, participated in the First Ecumenical Council [Nicaea, 325 A.D.] at which he shamed the heretics and, by his learning as well as by his sanctity, he commanded great astonishment. Taking a rock, St. Achilleus shouted to the Arians: "If Christ is a creation of God, as you say, then say: `let oil flow from this rock.' " The heretics remained silent and were amazed at such a request from St. Achilleus. Then, again the saint said: "And if the Son of God is equal to the Father, as we believe, let oil flow from this rock." And, indeed oil did flow to the amazement of all.
-from the Prologue of the Ohrid (15th of May) |
I do think you underestimate the early church, seemingly having a reactionary aversion to heirarchical structure (from my limited view of your posts). I know it is a commonly held view, but I cannot accept that heirarchy is by its very nature "wrong".
| Isthmian wrote: | | The church has ever been first and formost a political organisation with it's own agenda and a ruthless ability to destroy anything and anyone who stepped in it's path. |
Again, a popularly held view. But it's an incredibly narrow-minded and incorrect view of the visible Church. Any serious look into history, without an agenda, will show that the visible Church is nothing like how it is portrayed in popular culture. And after all, why should we believe popular culture anyway? In what way is it sympathetic to the Christian faith? It isn't of course, and so sees no problem in undermining and slandering, exagerating and falsifying, the actions of the Church. The problem is when well-meaning Christians buy into this distorted view and join in with the church-bashing. By doing so they undermine the very thing their faith is based upon (i.e. where does the Bible come from if not the Church? who holds the most faithful account of Christ's teachings if not the Church? who was promised the protection of the Holy Spirit if not the Church?)
And if the visible Church is so distinct from the invisible Church, then where is the history of this "real" Christianity? This church may be invisible, but surely her actions and fruits should be "salt and light" to the world? If both the body of believers and their fruits have been hidden from all pre-Reformation history then really, what is the point of it all? If that were the case then the church would have almost certainly failed, and the gates of Hell would have prevailed.
I don't accept this. Either the visible Church, made up of imperfect members - of saints and sinners, is the Church, or nothing is.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Deleted by request.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig
Last edited by jtheb on Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21)
Last edited by Covenanter on Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Done. It was true however.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1367
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
It strikes me as rather odd that a post which has been deleted as per a request should actually be included in the request itself. If the post offends and its removal is requested is it not counterproductive still to display the offending post (albeit as a quote) in the request for its removal?
However there is a different point at issue here. Whenever a named poster makes a post they are doing so as a member first and foremost. And in my view only as a member. Whether they are a moderator or not is quite immaterial since being a mod does not exempt one from having or stating opinions that are personal ones. Mods are just as likely as any other member to hold and state points of view that inhibit as well as encourage debate. If we go down the road of thinking that mods should not post personal opinions lest someone else might view them as inhibiting debate we are into the realm of censorship and it defeats the whole point of taking forum mods from amongst the members. Jtheb is indeed denoted as a moderator but I rather think that dates back to the previous board administration since he is the only poster who is actually designated thus. According to the forum index all threads are moderated by an anonymous moderator account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Isthmian wrote: | This thread went from the original post of Theos' regarding changes to the Canon into other possible texts that were not added at all.
I don't think therefore that this is too far off topic.
I have recently been reading about a 'Gospel According to Peter'. This is the Peter of the disciples, on whom I will build my church, Peter.
..... |
In the Spring of 1957, I attended a "Lent Bible School" run by the Parish church. A special meeting was taken by the Bishop of Winchester who was billed as an expert on 2 Peter.
His main point was that it could not have been written by the Apostle, in spite of the obvious reference to being with Jesus at the transfiguration. He said it was a pseudo-epigraph written using Peter's name in order to get a hearing. There are many such spurious letters & gospels. They range from good to fanciful to heretical. I rejected the bishop's teaching then, in favour of Peter's.
There is no necessity to see Peter or other named Apostles as the author of documents that bear their name, without attesting evidence.
Later that year I left the CofE never to return.
I will put a link to some useful sites that show how Gospels & Letters were accepted by early church leaders as being genuine. They are quoted & approved so that we can see the development of the Canon long before it was formally approved by the church.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
It could be argued that mods should show more restraint in their postings.
I was a mod in the previous management. Was requested to, and agreed to, continue as a mod.
It was not an automatic transfer.
I handled the matter under dicussion as an individual. Had I "been" a mod for the action I would have edited both the relevant postings.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bobbyc wrote: | It strikes me as rather odd that a post which has been deleted as per a request should actually be included in the request itself. If the post offends and its removal is requested is it not counterproductive still to display the offending post (albeit as a quote) in the request for its removal?
However there is a different point at issue here. Whenever a named poster makes a post they are doing so as a member first and foremost. And in my view only as a member. Whether they are a moderator or not is quite immaterial since being a mod does not exempt one from having or stating opinions that are personal ones. Mods are just as likely as any other member to hold and state points of view that inhibit as well as encourage debate. If we go down the road of thinking that mods should not post personal opinions lest someone else might view them as inhibiting debate we are into the realm of censorship and it defeats the whole point of taking forum mods from amongst the members. Jtheb is indeed denoted as a moderator but I rather think that dates back to the previous board administration since he is the only poster who is actually designated thus. According to the forum index all threads are moderated by an anonymous moderator account. |
The post was included in the request for deletion simply to identify it. The request was then deleted. My request was simply to remove a posting that was not relevant to the topic. I did not disagree with John's post but the discussion is on the intertestamental books, rather than the post-Constantinian church.
I expected John as moderator to remove both posts. Contributions relevant to the topic are always welcomed, even from moderators.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
