U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2013, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,305 posts, read 7,683,745 times
Reputation: 1729

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Catalyst View Post

Arius got a pretty much bum wrap. The only things surviving to incriminate him of heresy, is works written after the case, and all of his works were destroyed. However, a few survived and in his own words, his belief wasn't heretical, but only the "victor's spoils" versions was he heretical.

Sorry, the last part is totally an aside, just a personal beef of mine.
It was the misguided drive to orthodoxy, a blight onthe church
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2013, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Dallas TX
304 posts, read 247,793 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
It was the misguided drive to orthodoxy, a blight on the church
You can ONLY say that, because the church destroyed his works, and tells us what he taught. The works of his they didn't destroy contradict their claims.

Regardless, that was the topic at Nicea, not canonization.

The Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha are great for historical learning, and to show you how the early church looked at things. I've been told if you look at the votes and comments from the discussions on Canonicity, that as many thought 1 Clement was canonical as thought Revelations was. Both were closely numbered in approval. Well, maybe it was James not revelations, but the point is, some were elected or not elected as canon by very slim margins. SOME Churches have Clement as canonical.

So which canon do we want to go by?

It's a fun conversation, there is a lot of rumor that doesn't mesh with facts on it though. Every Church should teach a class on this so people have a working understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,051 posts, read 4,213,853 times
Reputation: 3048
[quote=Mike555;31637776]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Actually, the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. had nothing to do with assembling the canon. That is a misconception. That was not its purpose. Rather, the primary purpose of that Council had to do with resolving the Arian controversy. There were a number of other issues addressed, but none of them involved which Books were canonical. What actually was addressed at that Council is listed here >> The Canons of the Council of Nicea

F. F. Bruce writes,
In 393 a church council held in Augustine's see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approved by Augustine himself. The proceedings of this council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397), a provincial council. These appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so, they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east. [The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce, p. 97].
No misdirection. As I stated in post #4 regarding the Apocryphal books, while the Greek Septuagint included the Apocrypha, and while the Jews had respect for the Apocryphal books, they were never a part of the Hebrew Bible which we call the Old Testament and therefore were not considered Canonical or authoritative by the Jews. And the arrangement of Hebrew Bible does not contain 39 Books as our Old Testament does because our Old Testament splits Books such as Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel into 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and 1 and 2 Samuel. As well, the Hebrew arrangement combines the 12 minor prophets into one Book. The Hebrew arrangement has 24 Books, or 22 if Judges and Ruth are combined, and Jeremiah and Lamentations are combined. http://www.westminsterreformedchurch...ksOfHebrew.pdf

As for the counsels, the issue concerns the formal pronouncement and endorsement by those counsels concerning the canon. As F. F. Bruce stated in the posted excerpt (See post #16) to which you are objecting, 'they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east.' In other words, the counsels simply endorsed the Books which much earlier had already been recognized as authoritative. Refer also to post #16 concerning the Muratorian fragment which is dated to sometime during the end of the 2nd century and which listed 21 out of the 27 NT Books as Canonical at that time.
Ultimately, it all adds up to one thing: Blind acceptance of the Catholic Church's authority to canonize the New Testament means you blindly accept their infallible authority from God. So when and how did the Catholic Church lose the ability to establish absolute truth? If you accept the NT canon they gave you as "the only valid Word of God", when did it become right or appropriate to break away from them? Would that not constitute direct rebellion against God, God's authority and against absolute truth?

Both Catholicism and Protestantism moved the goal posts when it comes to OT canon. The RCC has removed 4 books from the OT canon. Protestantism has removed 14. Judaism has also removed books from that list of canon. The question remains: Did any of them have the right to do so?

I don't actually have a problem with the Protestant Reformation. Quite the opposite really. The problem I have is that Protestant sects eventually became as rigidly dogmatic and inflexible as the mother-church they separated themselves from. Protestants are the most extreme when it comes to loudly proclaiming the absoluteness of the existing scriptural canon, the closed status of that canon and the Trinity: All three of which were established by the post-Apostolic and very politically corruptible Christian Church. The ridiculous general idea? "If Luther and the other Reformers didn't question it, then it must be absolute and unimpeachable truth."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Dallas TX
304 posts, read 247,793 times
Reputation: 42
[quote=godofthunder9010;31651362]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Ultimately, it all adds up to one thing: Blind acceptance of the Catholic Church's authority to canonize the New Testament means you blindly accept their infallible authority from God. So when and how did the Catholic Church lose the ability to establish absolute truth? If you accept the NT canon they gave you as "the only valid Word of God", when did it become right or appropriate to break away from them? Would that not constitute direct rebellion against God, God's authority and against absolute truth?

Both Catholicism and Protestantism moved the goal posts when it comes to OT canon. The RCC has removed 4 books from the OT canon. Protestantism has removed 14. Judaism has also removed books from that list of canon. The question remains: Did any of them have the right to do so?

I don't actually have a problem with the Protestant Reformation. Quite the opposite really. The problem I have is that Protestant sects eventually became as rigidly dogmatic and inflexible as the mother-church they separated themselves from. Protestants are the most extreme when it comes to loudly proclaiming the absoluteness of the existing scriptural canon, the closed status of that canon and the Trinity: All three of which were established by the post-Apostolic and very politically corruptible Christian Church. The ridiculous general idea? "If Luther and the other Reformers didn't question it, then it must be absolute and unimpeachable truth."
If only any of this was true. It might be a conversation piece.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,051 posts, read 4,213,853 times
Reputation: 3048
[quote=Xian Catalyst;31651393]
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
If only any of this was true. It might be a conversation piece.
Please specify the part you believe is inaccurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Dallas TX
304 posts, read 247,793 times
Reputation: 42
The Catholic Church, the one in Rome? DIdn't canonize the Bible. The preponderance of the Major believers of the faith at that time contributed, and they mostly accepted over a hundred years what belonged, and had eliminated what didn't belong.

Those fathers spread out and some became the Ethiopean church, some in Turkey, some in Byzantine, some in North Africa, blah blah blah. Some of those Churches NEVER stayed with Rome, although I believe Rome accepts them as part, and there is a word for it, but heck if I remember what it is...

I'll leave it right there. No need to talk about more points, they will be snipped out because I haven't figured out what I'm doing wrong yet.

I'll flip it back at you, why on earth do you think someone living 2000 years after the events, would know better than the people who's father's and grandfathers walked with Christ or the Apostles?

That's like doing NO research on George Washington, writing his History today, and saying that takes precedent over the commentaries of his butler, and secretary, and peers who lived with him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 08:37 PM
 
21,976 posts, read 16,750,349 times
Reputation: 8762
[quote=godofthunder9010;31651362]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Ultimately, it all adds up to one thing: Blind acceptance of the Catholic Church's authority to canonize the New Testament means you blindly accept their infallible authority from God. So when and how did the Catholic Church lose the ability to establish absolute truth? If you accept the NT canon they gave you as "the only valid Word of God", when did it become right or appropriate to break away from them? Would that not constitute direct rebellion against God, God's authority and against absolute truth?

Both Catholicism and Protestantism moved the goal posts when it comes to OT canon. The RCC has removed 4 books from the OT canon. Protestantism has removed 14. Judaism has also removed books from that list of canon. The question remains: Did any of them have the right to do so?

I don't actually have a problem with the Protestant Reformation. Quite the opposite really. The problem I have is that Protestant sects eventually became as rigidly dogmatic and inflexible as the mother-church they separated themselves from. Protestants are the most extreme when it comes to loudly proclaiming the absoluteness of the existing scriptural canon, the closed status of that canon and the Trinity: All three of which were established by the post-Apostolic and very politically corruptible Christian Church. The ridiculous general idea? "If Luther and the other Reformers didn't question it, then it must be absolute and unimpeachable truth."
First of all, just so it's clear, I am not a Roman Catholic. And Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as a Pope.

Now, simply put; on the divine side, God guided the formation of the NT canon. Just as God the Holy Spirit had superintended the writing of the original autographs without interfering with the vocabulary and writing style of the human authors, so that they were written without error, He also oversaw the formation of the NT canon. He controlled the selection and collection of the NT Books.

On the human side, it took time to bring under one cover the 27 Books of the NT. There were criteria which were used to determine which Books were authoritative. Criteria such as conformity to the rule of faith, that is, the agreement or consistency of a given writing with the basic Christian tradition recognized as normative by the church. The issue of Apostolic authority. That is, was a Book written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle. Also, reception by the churches - was the Book (letter) accepted and used by the church at large.

In a very real sense, the NT canon was closed (from the divine perspective) with the writing of the last of the NT Books around 95 or 96 A.D. From the human side, the recognition of which Books were authoritative occurred over time. It is important to realize that the church did not make a Book authoritative, but could only recognize what already was authoritative by virtue of having originated with God. As I've pointed out, by somewhere near the end of the 2nd century, 21 of the NT Testament Books had already been recognized by the church at large as authoritative. Refer to the Muratorian fragment regarding that.

Also, the NT canon is the same for the Roman Catholic, Eastern Greek Orthodox and Protestant Churches. They all use the same 27 Books. The difference is with the Old Testament canon. The Roman Catholics accept the Apocryphal books as authoritative, while the Eastern Orthodox church apparently historically couldn't decide whether the Apocryphal books should be included in the canon, or whether it should use the Hebrew canon.

This needs to be understood. The Hebrew Bible which we call the Old Testament did not include the Apocryphal books. While the Greek Septuagint included the Apocryphal books, and while the Jews respected the Apocryphal books, they did not consider them to be authoritative. The Hebrew Bible is the canon of Scripture. The Apocryphal books are not a part of the Word of God. Our Protestant Old Testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible. The only difference is in the arrangement of the Books and the fact that certain Books such as Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible are split into 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and 1 and 2 Chronicles in our Old Testament. As well, in the Hebrew Bible the 12 minor prophets are one book instead of different Books as in our Protestant Old Testament.

Now I suppose that anyone who does not agree with the fact that God the Holy Spirit guided the process of canonization is going to question the validity of both the OT and NT canon as we have it no matter what is said. But the fact of the matter is, we do have the canon that God intended us to have.

Last edited by Mike555; 10-02-2013 at 08:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,051 posts, read 4,213,853 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Catalyst View Post
The Catholic Church, the one in Rome? DIdn't canonize the Bible. The preponderance of the Major believers of the faith at that time contributed, and they mostly accepted over a hundred years what belonged, and had eliminated what didn't belong.

Those fathers spread out and some became the Ethiopean church, some in Turkey, some in Byzantine, some in North Africa, blah blah blah. Some of those Churches NEVER stayed with Rome, although I believe Rome accepts them as part, and there is a word for it, but heck if I remember what it is...

I'll leave it right there. No need to talk about more points, they will be snipped out because I haven't figured out what I'm doing wrong yet.

I'll flip it back at you, why on earth do you think someone living 2000 years after the events, would know better than the people who's father's and grandfathers walked with Christ or the Apostles?

That's like doing NO research on George Washington, writing his History today, and saying that takes precedent over the commentaries of his butler, and secretary, and peers who lived with him.
Catholic = Universal or Overall or Entire. In this case, I'm talking about the entirety of Christianity starting with the Council of Nicaea. It was many centuries later that Rome attempted (and largely succeeded) in claiming sole rulership over all Christendom. That early pre-Roman rulership Catholicism is the precursor the Roman Catholic Church today. That Church established many things as "absolute truth" via Ecumenical Councils. Protestantism rejects many of the "absolute truths" established by every Ecumenical Council after Nicaea -- and much of Protestantism rejects parts of Nicaea as well. Yet it is those same councils that established the canon of the Old and New Testament.

Protestantism picks and chooses what it does and does not accept from the Ecumenical Councils' absolute truths. And those earliest Ecumenical Councils did accept the 14 Apocryphal books of the OT. Protestantism rejected them anyways, and in the very next breath they defend the absolute validity of the NT canon to the death -- canon established by those very same councils -- as unimpeachable absolute truth. I'm pointing out the obvious: Traditional Protestantism is being massively inconsistent here.

As far as the George Washington example goes, did you ever hear about him chopping down the cherry tree? Many people in his own generation and subsequent generations believed he did, but it's actually a 100% made up story. And we're not talking about men and women who walked and talked with Christ. We're talking about their great-great-great-great grandchildren and their converts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Dallas TX
304 posts, read 247,793 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Catholic = Universal or Overall or Entire. In this case, I'm talking about the entirety of Christianity starting with the Council of Nicaea.
Ok. I assumed, usually it's intended the other way. I let other convos cloud my interpretation of yours. Bad of me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
It was many centuries later that Rome attempted (and largely succeeded) in claiming sole rulership over all Christendom. That early pre-Roman rulership Catholicism is the precursor the Roman Catholic Church today. That Church established many things as "absolute truth" via Ecumenical Councils. Protestantism rejects many of the "absolute truths" established by every Ecumenical Council after Nicaea -- and much of Protestantism rejects parts of Nicaea as well. Yet it is those same councils that established the canon of the Old and New Testament.

Protestantism picks and chooses what it does and does not accept from the Ecumenical Councils' absolute truths. And those earliest Ecumenical Councils did accept the 14 Apocryphal books of the OT. Protestantism rejected them anyways, and in the very next breath they defend the absolute validity of the NT canon to the death -- canon established by those very same councils -- as unimpeachable absolute truth. I'm pointing out the obvious: Traditional Protestantism is being massively inconsistent here.
Agree. I'm protestant too. First time I had to prove my points in a debate on "Rome is bad" (my evangelical upbringing) I had to change my song.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
As far as the George Washington example goes, did you ever hear about him chopping down the cherry tree? Many people in his own generation and subsequent generations believed he did, but it's actually a 100% made up story. And we're not talking about men and women who walked and talked with Christ. We're talking about their great-great-great-great grandchildren and their converts.
yes, I know the cherry tree story and revelation. I was afraid I might eat that.

For what it's worth, this answer reads entirely different to me than the last.

Here is a pretty good explanation of the canon that I found looking at 1 Clement. I thought the Ethiopeans or someone had it as Canonical. But it wasn't 1 clement, it's a different clement, and I'm ignorant of that so...

Apologetics Press - The Canon and Extra-Canonical Writings
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top