|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, closer is good. So 30-40 year after He were resurrected, John of Patmos had his trip, not a problem.
I can't avoid a wry smile at the difference between what you classify as "not a problem" and what Jamat classifies as "not a problem" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .
So, the nearer-to-(or further-from)-the-incarnation half of your argument works in this case, but not the culture-has-progressed-so-we-know-better-still-40-years-on part?
quote:
It's a work of genius whatever.
It's certainly easier than Finnegan's Wake.
quote:
Audience value: We're inheritors, beneficiaries of heirlooms that need careful handling. The LEAST said about them the better in some ways. Apart from as art, literature by our spiritual ancestors. What use they are beyond that, the arcana - including takes on atonement, weird stuff like the harrowing of hell - beyond the reporting, I've no idea.
Almost thou persuadest me, but... everything beyond the Gospels, Acts, and possibly Epistles should basically be treated like the Deuterocanonicals?
I know we all have a "canon within the canon", but I struggle with pushing it that far, especially in view of how long the current one's been there. Seems a bit hasty to ditch half of it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think it's a case if ditching any of it, rather of keeping things in perspective.
Christ provides that perspective, of course.
Meanwhile, on the Anderson thing, I can't see why Jamat is so keen - evangelistic almost - for the rest of us to adopt that particular schema. What possible difference does it make?
I can see the attraction of neat schemes but not why we should be so keen to win everyone else round to our own way of thinking on issues that are speculative at best.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Put another way, the basic problem I have with Martin's approach is that while it might filter out some loony kabbalism and psychosis-inducing content (for some people*), I think it might make us too easily dismiss things that have come down to us to be more than just a museum piece.
The main thrust of the course I teach on Revelation is indeed about teaching people to not miss the wood for the trees in Scripture in general and not get tied up on the number of the Beast etc.
That said, I also think it says some things about the sovreignty of God in history (a touchy one for Martin and thus just the kind of thing to be brushed conveniently aside), Jesus the Alpha and the Omega, the eschatalogical hope... if the promise of the risen Christ to wipe away every tear is just the result of acid, I'm going to be more than disappointed.
==
*I mean this. I was with a guy only yesterday... brr.
[ 07. January 2018, 21:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
But is that what saying?
Like most posters here, I can't always work out what Martin is trying to say - when he's at his most cryptic.
At his best, though, it can sometimes sound like a jazz solo.
For my own part, I've understood some of his comments on this thread in a hyperbolic way. I'm not sure what he's leaving in or taking out. I'm not even sure he means us to see it that way.
Just as your course on Revelation discourages people from fixating on the Number of The Beast and getting tied up in 'detail', then could it not be that Martin is doing something similar? 'Don't focus on all that, focus on Christ ...'
I don't know if I'm right but that's how it comes over to me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Hi Ricardus
In denying that the Prophetic year is 360 days, you are contradicting major expositors.
AFACT, the only expositors who assert the existence of a 360-day prophetic year are premillennial dispensationalists, who are very much a minority. By contrast the idea that a week means seven years seems to have much more widespread support, even among historicists.
quote:
If you are really interested and wish to investigate it further, I suggest you look at Anderson who Pentecost who also quotes others who have thought it through thoroughly but suffice it here that Leviticus 23 does not constitute a rebuttal and Genesis 7 and 8 are conclusive.
If you can point to a passage of Anderson that reconciles a year of 12 30-day months with the reality that the lunar cycle is 29.5 days, then I will happily read it.
Does he assert:
a.) That the Hebrew calendar was not lunar, i.e. there was no connection between the new moon and the first day of the month;
b.) That the lunar cycle used to be exactly 30 days but has accelerated;
c.) That the Prophetic year is different from the year used for the computation of religious festivals, tithes, etc;
d.) Something else I haven't thought of?
quote:
The flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month 7:11 and ended on the seventeenth day of the seventh month 8:4. This is exactly 5 months also said to be 150 days.
No, it says that the waters 'had abated' after 150 days and that the ark came to rest on Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. It doesn't say that those two events were simultaneous.
The only other possibilities that present themselves are that the months weren't lunar, the lunar cycle was longer, or the scribe miscalculated.
quote:
quote:
Anderson's schema makes Daniel either vague or obscurantist
This is simply nonsense. Once again, if interested, I suggest you investigate further. If you are not and in point scoring mode, then there is no point in further interactions.
I apologise if you were offended. You might want to consider, though, whether the assertion that historicists regard Daniel as fraudulent, and/or are only interested in dissing the Bible so that they can commit immorality, might also be a little bit offensive.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Gamaliel: The problem is that you can admire a jazz solo, but you can't teach someone else how to repeat it.
Of course we need our jazz artists, including our theological jazz artists (what a great thought*).
And indeed, as a musician, I drive fellow-musicians crazy with my improvisation and indiscipline with regard to music theory.
But as a Bible teacher, while I'd be dishonest if I claimed not to seek at all to impress others in my teaching, I like to think my main concern is to pass on stuff that other people can understand, process and think through for themselves, and pass on in their turn.
So for my own purposes I'm trying to do the verbal equivalent of replaying Martin's solos again and again, finding the chords, trying to work out the fingering, and so on, and see if it's something I can make sense of.
==
*Wow, what a tangent. I think jazz is like abstract art, isn't it? To do it really well you first have to learn the classical rules, then work out just how far you can bend and break them... I had a job once interpreting for a week-long jazz seminar in Kent. Guitarist paused and leant over to show the keyboard player how to play his bit, playing it for him flawlessly on the keyboard - from the wrong side of the keyboard, i.e. "upside down". Mind. Blown. I didn't go anywhere near any of the instruments all week.
[ 07. January 2018, 21:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Please don't tell me God is sovereign in history. The correct adjectival phrase would have to be "to blame". Human history is hideous. It's not helped that Boy #1 bought me Dunkirk for Christmas, but, really, you'd not want to be held responsible for human history, really you wouldn't.
As for Martin, bless him, I love his solos, when I can follow them, but he'd probably be considered a bit too weird to play sax for Gong...
[ 07. January 2018, 22:35: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
, it says that the waters 'had abated' after 150 days and that the ark came to rest on Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. It doesn't say that those two events were simultaneous
The Bible end-dates the flood! No other argument is needed.
Dispensational theology is the only school of prophecy that takes these things literally. Historicists and Preterists seem to me to cherry pick what is convenient for their schemas...They do the very thing that dispesationalists are accused of. Ladd is interesting. Though not a dispensatioalist himself, he points out that using literal exegesis, one would have to be a dispensationalist..but he does not.
They deserve a hearing but that is up to you.
Justifying behaviour is a major human pastime. No specific offence was intended.
Anderson in ‘ The Coming Prince’ devotes a chapter (ch 6) to the ‘prophetic’ year. It will be out of print. Not sure if you can get it on kindle. I also refer to J Dwight Pentecost. ‘Things to Come’ and Arnold Fructenbaum’ ‘The footsteps of the Messiah..a study of the sequence of prophetic events’.
For an informed, dissenting view, you might be interested in Stanley J Grenz in ‘The Millennial Maze’. Ch 4 entitled A Future Kingdom for Israel’.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
G Dee: how do you draw the line?
Thank you for your comment. I am not an academic. No original research or anything like that. I use the NASB for personal devotions. 66 books ...40 authors.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Please don't tell me God is sovereign in history. The correct adjectival phrase would have to be "to blame". Human history is hideous. It's not helped that Boy #1 bought me Dunkirk for Christmas, but, really, you'd not want to be held responsible for human history, really you wouldn't.
As for Martin, bless him, I love his solos, when I can follow them, but he'd probably be considered a bit too weird to play sax for Gong...
Can I read it after you? The key is ‘human’ history..ie done by humans?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In which case you must be listening to a different solo to the one I can hear.
Martin's solos can strike me as off-key or a cacophony at times, but it doesn't strike me that he leaves God out of the equation. His blue-note, if you like, is that of the Incarnation
Fully human, fully Divine.
He's said that himself enough times.
It might be the case, as with Eric Morecambe, that he has all the notes but not necessarily in the right order ...
But he bashes the tin-hat of the Incarnation often enough.
Anyhow, I'm not convinced the forced harmonies of the pre-millenialist literalists are any more harmonious. They give a semblance of order but they have to bend notes to make them fit.
It's this very elasticity whilst purporting to provide a reliable framework that enables them to make the challenge, 'Show me in the Bible where it doesn't fit ...'
Because they can adjust the musical goalposts to contrive it to do so. Why they do so is beyond me. It's like watching patterns in the fire.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
G Dee: how do you draw the line?
Thank you for your comment. I am not an academic. No original research or anything like that. I use the NASB for personal devotions. 66 books ...40 authors.
Nor am I an academic. But this does not address the real point I was making - you assert that all scripture is divinely inspired, so how do you define scripture?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
G Dee: how do you draw the line?
Thank you for your comment. I am not an academic. No original research or anything like that. I use the NASB for personal devotions. 66 books ...40 authors.
Nor am I an academic. But this does not address the real point I was making - you assert that all scripture is divinely inspired, so how do you define scripture?
As the books of the Bible. Have a good day.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
But what Bible? The Authorised Version or one of its more modern translations? The Douai? The Latin one I'd find on a lectern in St Peter's? That used by the Eastern Orthodox. That used by the Copts, or the one in you'd find in the ancient churches of Kerala and Sri Lanka, those talking of foundation by St Thomas?
This is not a question of translation, but the inclusion or exclusion of particular books.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But what Bible? The Authorised Version or one of its more modern translations? The Douai? The Latin one I'd find on a lectern in St Peter's? That used by the Eastern Orthodox. That used by the Copts, or the one in you'd find in the ancient churches of Kerala and Sri Lanka, those talking of foundation by St Thomas?
This is not a question of translation, but the inclusion or exclusion of particular books.
Of what relevance and what is the point of your question?
To me Bible=Bible. I have several versions. I told you that personally, I like the NASB. I do not know the Apocryphal books apart from superficially.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Please don't tell me God is sovereign in history. The correct adjectival phrase would have to be "to blame". Human history is hideous.
This is a bit off-topic, but it seems to me very difficult to have an eschatological hope without a bare minimum of sovreignty. Alpha and Omega, if not every last detail in between.
For more on my idiosyncratic "quantum" version of God's sovereignty and human history, see the end of this post here.
(Gong come up on my current YouTube playlist from time to time, but I think nothing beats Supper's Ready as a soundtrack to Revelation).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat, I'd have thought the relevance was obvious. If you claim that all scripture is divinely inspired, you have to define what all scripture is. To say that it's the Bible does not take matters much further as there are different reckonings of what is in the Bible. The obvious example is the books excluded by Luther and the Anglican churches, but included as deuterocanonical by the Catholics, who constitute by far the largest Christian community. I understand that there are yet different lists in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions.
So how would you define scripture? Is it simply what you would call the Bible, and if so, which of the varying list of contents has your allegiance? Why is that so, and by what criteria do you include and exclude? ISTM that this is highly relevant to the thread. I'm not talking of which translation you use, which seems to be the limit of your understanding of the point. And why do you have only a superficial knowldedge of the apocrypha?
[ 08. January 2018, 05:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat, I'd have thought the relevance was obvious. If you claim that all scripture is divinely inspired, you have to define what all scripture is. To say that it's the Bible does not take matters much further as there are different reckonings of what is in the Bible. The obvious example is the books excluded by Luther and the Anglican churches, but included as deuterocanonical by the Catholics, who constitute by far the largest Christian community. I understand that there are yet different lists in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions.
So how would you define scripture? Is it simply what you would call the Bible, and if so, which of the varying list of contents has your allegiance? Why is that so, and by what criteria do you include and exclude? ISTM that this is highly relevant to the thread. I'm not talking of which translation you use, which seems to be the limit of your understanding of the point. And why do you have only a superficial knowldedge of the apocrypha?
Scripture=Bible. Apocrypha =non Bible
Apocrypha consequently is irrelevant.
Are you trying to set me up for something?
If so, not interested.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The canon might be a tangent too far, but note that if you'd been living any earlier than the nineteenth century, the Apocrypha would have been in your Protestant Bible. As a non-conformist protestant it pains me to say it, but the canon is not as clear-cut as protestants, especially non-conformists, would like to have you think either. It just isn't.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat,
1. I am not trying to set you up for anything. I'm trying to get you to look at the topic and define it.
2. You give some short definitions (or more accurately descriptions) and translations of apocrypha. Those would be acceptable to Luther and Cranmer, but as I've said none is a description acceptable in many other Christian traditions, including the 2 largest as well as some rather smaller.
3. Are you now able to give a proper definition of what you would call scripture, and what is constituted by it?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Come on, Gee Dee, we all know non-conformist Protestants wrote the Bible.
Daniel was a Protestant. Isaiah was a Protestant. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all Protestants.
What's more,they were also pre-tribulation Rapture, pre-millenialist, Dispensationalist Protestants.
Isn't that obvious?
It's the plain meaning of scripture isn't it? What the Bible says?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gee Dee: Are you now able to give a proper definition of what you would call scripture, and what is constituted by it?
Not apart from What I already said. Perhaps you could enlighten?
Gamaliel: Dear chap, are you trying to pull my pig tail?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
No Jamat. You seek to make a case that all scripture is divinely inspired. An essential part of that is that you define scripture. Basically, the ball's in your court.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
No Jamat. You seek to make a case that all scripture is divinely inspired. An essential part of that is that you define scripture. Basically, the ball's in your court.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Gee Dee: whatever is written in the Bible is divinely inspired. If you do not agree, you make the case.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Again, no. What is the Bible you refer to? Is there but 1 Bible?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Again, no. What is the Bible you refer to? Is there but 1 Bible?
Yes, the authoritative version.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The 1 God dictated 1604-1611.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Jamat but also trying to make a serious point.
I'm not accusing you of this, but I once heard the Rev Ian Paisley on the radio declaring, 'St Patrick was not a Roman Catholic! St Patrick was a Protestant!'
Thereby betraying a common approach found among certain brands of conservative Protestantism - that their particular 'take' is the only one there is and has been so from the outset.
I've previously introduced the fact that the Eastern Churches were the last to officially adopt the Book of Revelation as canonical scripture, an observation you dismissed as 'irrelevant' or at least you questioned its relevancy.
Now you appear to be suggesting that the fact that it's irrelevant that other brands of Christianity differ from Protestants in which texts they consider canonical.
Your answer, 'the authoritative version' begs a number of questions of course, as you'll undoubtedly by aware.
Deemed authoritative by whom?
Who decides?
If the Ethiopians, for instance, hold that the Book of Enoch is authoritative, what criteria do we have to disagree with them?
How do we know that the Book of Enoch isn't authoritative?
Unless by some kind of collegial, conciliar and consensual agreement that is shared in common by all but the Ethiopians (and whoever else may include the Book of Enoch in the canon).
What grounds are there for not including it? Jude quotes it. Why should it not be included?
![[Biased]](wink.gif) Ok, of course I'm not arguing a case for its inclusion. But my reasons for not including it may or may not tally with yours. How do we know which of us is right?
As I understand it, the issue of which scriptures were officially canonised was more an issue of deciding which were profitable to be read in church - the Christians of the time weren't saying that the other writings were somehow beyond the pale ...
Of course, over time, some texts such as The Shepherd of Hermas (which appear to have been treated almost on a par with the canonical scriptures) fell out of regular use.
So what we have in the 'authoritative' scriptures, as you put it, are those texts which both 'stood the test of time' as it were and which were universally (or almost universally) regarded as being authoritative.
That doesn't deny inspiration, nor does it take away the Godward aspects - it's a 'synergistic' thing.
The scriptures are both the words of men and the word of God. Inspiration isn't dictation. But then, you know all that ...
I'm not suggesting that we all have to adopt The Book of Enoch or whatever texts there might be among the Syriacs, the Copts, Armenians and so forth that aren't found in RC, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant Bibles.
All I'm saying, along with Eutychus, is that the question of canonicity has never been as cut-and-dried as some have made out.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat, to put it mildly, your post's more than a bit flippant. Which of the numerous versions is what you would call the authoritative one? Any of those I mentioned? Any other?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat, to put it mildly, your post's more than a bit flippant. Which of the numerous versions is what you would call the authoritative one? Any of those I mentioned? Any other?
More importantly, WHY? Why are the 66 books of the Protestant Bible the only ones that constitute "The Bible"? How do you know the Apocrypha isn't part of the Bible?
Is your answer simply, "Well that's what my denomination teaches"? If that answer is good enough to determine what is Scripture, is it good enough for every question about Scripture? Is what is true exactly and only what your denomination teaches? What makes your denomination, out of the hundreds or thousands of Protestant denominations, so highly favored? I think this is extremely relevant to this thread.
Before I can make any use of the fact that all Scripture is inspired by God, I need to know what counts as "Scripture." And consequently I need to know why.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think the quick'n dirty answer to this issue is that the felt need for a nailed-down canon is inversely proportional to the presence of a priesthood and the expectation of the congregation that Scripture is to be mediated to them through a priest rather than placed into their own hands.
The invention of the printing press and the Reformation both put a big dent in the prevailing traditional model to an extent that post Vatican II Catholics are positively encouraged to read the Bible, which they weren't previously. I don't know how Orthodox practice has evolved if at all.
This leads to new questions about how the canon and the doctrine of inspriation are addressed.
[ 08. January 2018, 10:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the quick'n dirty answer to this issue is that the felt need for a nailed-down canon is inversely proportional to the presence of a priesthood and the expectation of the congregation that Scripture is to be mediated to them through a priest rather than placed into their own hands.
And the irony in this is that the people who most eschew the priesthood, and most value personal interaction with scripture, are the most ignorant about the history of the books and their canonization. They purport to be Bereans, but unknowingly take the canon on the authority of others. So proud of finding out for myself what the book says, when it was handed to me and I was told, "Here, only read this." That direction is never questioned. Hell, it's not even acknowledged. Hell, its existence is not even dreamed of.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That reminds me that, again as a non-conformist protestant, I have a Bible on order from an inmate, containing (not least because of my input) the Deuterocanonicals, about which we had a discussion on this very subject. So don't paint us all with the same brush please.
More generally, I think that since the Reformation and the printing press (not to mention the internet) the Pandora's box of access to the text has been opened and is not likely to slam shut again any time soon. Any church that doesn't factor this in is going to have problems. I'll have to ask the 25-year-old Russian Russian Orthodox churchwarden newly elected to our ecumenical bureau, who appears to have a rather reformist approach to Orthodoxy, what she thinks about it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That reminds me that, again as a non-conformist protestant, I have a Bible on order from an inmate, containing (not least because of my input) the Deuterocanonicals, about which we had a discussion on this very subject. So don't paint us all with the same brush please.
More generally, I think that since the Reformation and the printing press (not to mention the internet) the Pandora's box of access to the text has been opened and is not likely to slam shut again any time soon. Any church that doesn't factor this in is going to have problems. I'll have to ask the 25-year-old Russian Russian Orthodox churchwarden newly elected to our ecumenical bureau, who appears to have a rather reformist approach to Orthodoxy, what she thinks about it.
I think your 'quick and dirty' answer was just that, quick and dirty ...
As you'll know, of course, there was more to the Reformation to 'have printing press will read Bible.'
The RC authorities didn't react badly to the invention of the printing press. They simply used it to produce missals and prayer books.
The issue wasn't the printing press per se, of course, but the ability to circulate polemical tracts and arguments - as Luther and the other Reformers did. A bit like social media and the internet having an impact on the consumption of news - fake or otherwise.
As far as the 'deuterocanonicals' go - well the RCs regard them as such, the Orthodox, as far as I am aware, don't make that kind of distinction.
As for the individual Orthodoxen's approach to scripture - Mousethief and your somewhat reformist Russian Orthodox friend will be able to shed light on that but my impression seems to be - with English-speaking Orthodox in the UK at least - their approach to scripture doesn't differ that drastically from what you might find among High Church Anglicans, say.
That might only because most of them used to be High Church Anglicans ...
That said, I've met Romanian monks and so on who seem to use the scriptures in not that dissimilar a way to the way Anglicans might.
I suspect it all depends on who you speak to.
Non-conformist Protestants don't all use the scriptures in the same way either.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And then there's all the stuff about the 1611 Authorised Version being translated in such a way as to conform to King James I's proclivities.
'Bishops' rather than 'elders' for instance ...
'No Bishops, no King ...'
Which is doubly ironic when some of the most non-conformist of non-conformist sects insist on the King James Only ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But that's another issue.
However we cut it, we all of us defer to some kind of tradition or 'priesthood' whether it's a paper-priest or a real live one - whether it's a school of interpretation - Schofield, Anderson etc - or whether it's a Big T Tradition.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And then there's all the stuff about the 1611 Authorised Version being translated in such a way as to conform to King James I's proclivities.
'Bishops' rather than 'elders' for instance ...
Bishop = overseer, not elder. Elder translates presvyter = priest.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Submerged by work, listening to this, imagining it's this thread set to music...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, yes, I was being too 'quick and dirty' too.
Okay that's between you and your confessor.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gee Dee: to put it mildly, your post's more than a bit flippant
Not at all. The canon to me is a settled issue. It does not include the additions Jerome made and I will not be commenting further on it.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gee Dee: to put it mildly, your post's more than a bit flippant
Not at all. The canon to me is a settled issue. It does not include the additions Jerome made and I will not be commenting further on it.
I don't think Gee D was necessarily referring to whatever additions Jerome made.
Did Jerome make any additions for the Ethiopians, the Oriental Orthodox? The Syriacs and the Mar-Thoma churches of India?
I think one of the points Gee D was making was that this is a wider issue than spats between Roman Catholics and Protestants as to what should be included in the canon of scripture.
There are other churches outside of the Western context - or the Eastern Orthodox context - which have a somewhat different history or trajectory and who a different take on these things.
What about them?
You appear to want to shut the lid down very firmly on discussing issues around the canon.
Why can't we examine and discuss that issue as well as any other issues?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gee Dee: to put it mildly, your post's more than a bit flippant
Not at all. The canon to me is a settled issue. It does not include the additions Jerome made and I will not be commenting further on it.
In this you are historically plain and simply wrong. Jerome didn't make any additions. He supported REMOVING certain books, and was swatted down by the Catholic Church authorities. It was somewhere in the Reformation or post-Reformation tumult that the books got subtracted, not by any council or any kind of authority. To an extent arbitrarily. They finally stopped being printed to save printers money. There's your spiritual heritage.
That the canon is, for you, a settled issue clearly says you accept unthinkingly the decisions of your forebears -- which is to say, big-T Tradition. Now you are in the position of accepting some Traditions and rejecting others. One might reasonably ask what your criteria are for this distinction.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel:
Why can't we examine and discuss that issue as well as any other issues?
Obviously, you may.
Source
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It depends, of course, on the sources you use.
Here's a link from what appears to be a polemical Protestant site aimed at Catholics in order, presumably, to teach them the error of their ways:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm
According to this, St Jerome was persuaded to include the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books against his better judgement and that be rejecting them later on the Protestants were simply following his original intention.
I'm sure there are Catholic and other historians who would dispute this version of events.
It's certainly the case that the Bible Society stopped including the Apocrypha in editions of the KJV intended for use overseas in the early 1800s, to save on printing costs.
However, the Apocrypha had quietly disappeared from editions of the KJV printed during the Commonwealth and Protectorate following the lead of the Westminster Confession (1647) which declared that the 'books commonly called Apocrypha' were not of divine inspiration and therefore not to be included in scripture.
Use of readings from the Apocrypha remain permissible for Anglicans, of course, but it tends only to be those at the Higher end of the spectrum who avail themselves of this opportunity.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel:
Why can't we examine and discuss that issue as well as any other issues?
Obviously, you may.
Source
But this article says nothing about Orthodox practice or the customs of the Oriental Orthodox nor the Syriacs, Ethiopians and so on.
It assumes that there are only Roman Catholics and Protestants.
The point I'm trying to make is that however we understand and wherever we ourselves draw the line on what's in and what's out, it's a wider issue than Jerome and the Reformers.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
According to this, St Jerome was persuaded to include the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books against his better judgement and that be rejecting them later on the Protestants were simply following his original intention.
That's actually not far from the truth, but you need to point out that he wasn't ADDING them against his judgment, but KEEPING them against his judgment. He wanted to toss them out, a novel and unprecedented idea that was, in fact, rejected by the Powers That Be in the Church. His judgment was largely based on the fact that he couldn't find Hebrew copies of them. Hebrew copies of some of them have since turned up. Will the Protestants add those back in?
Do the Protestants accept all of Jerome's judgments? Will they use the Vulgate as a blueprint for their translations?
Again, arbitrary decisions made without defensible reason.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
As I understand it, the issue of which scriptures were officially canonised was more an issue of deciding which were profitable to be read in church - the Christians of the time weren't saying that the other writings were somehow beyond the pale ...
The decisions around the selection of the canon concerned: (a) Had the book been in wide and general usage by the church for a long time? (three centuries or so). (b) Had it been found useful pastorally with no objection from any quarter to its tenets, reasoning and advice. (c) Was its authorship verifiable, and if not was its claim to purported authorship at least reasonable. (d) Did it's teaching radically conflict with any other books already unquestionably accepted by the church as a whole.
A very sensible practice initially, which became rather corrupted eventually due to Constantine's obsession with unification of doctrine and praxis as a means of establishing control of his earthly empire.
With regard to Revelation, the oldest title was probably "Apocalypse of John"; then in the Latin Church, "Revelation of John". 'Divine' appears no earlier than 4th cent. and simply means 'theologian'. However the title is misleading in that John is not what is 'revealed' so it would be more correct to refer to it as "The Revelation of Jesus Christ TO John the theologian", which is what the book actually purports to be.
The John of authorship could be one of many possible John's and for textual analysis reasons probably not the John who authored a Gospel and 3 epistles. One thing seems certain though the John who wrote it was Jewish. Probably Palestinian, one John the Prophet, with Galilee his original home, having then migrated to Asia Minor. Writers of apocalypses generally lived outside Judea and this type of literature was usually read where the Law was less observed.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've always been told that one of the reasons the Reformers were wary of them was because of references to prayers for the dead in one of the Books of The Maccabees.
What they didn't seem to realise that the Jews do pray for the dead. They do it to this very day. I've seen them.
Anyhow, I once asked an awkward question of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, that if a copy of Paul's letter to The Laodiceans were ever to turn up (and there are apocryphal versions apparently) and it could be proven to be such, should we include it in the canon?
His answer was an interesting one. As well as a wry dig at me for asking awkward and hypothetical questions, he suggested that if it could be proven to be genuinely Pauline and all of Christendom, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox were convinced of it then it could conceivably be accepted - but from the Orthodox side it'd need an Ecumenical Council to agree it.
Interesting conciliar take ... Which is what one would expect when you think about it ...
Coming back to the Apocrypha, I've always been told that the Jews don't accept them into their canon - but as far as I know there were plenty of copies and fragments at Qumran as well as what Protestant would consider OT canonical texts.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Gamaliel wrote: quote:
Coming back to the Apocrypha, I've always been told that the Jews don't accept them into their canon - but as far as I know there were plenty of copies and fragments at Qumran as well as what Protestant would consider OT canonical texts.
I think the issue of canonicity is not coterminous with regarding writings as helpful or even interesting, unless all you ever read is canonical scripture. I think the drive for canonicity revolved more around use in the liturgy, did it not?
Plus of course that Judaism today is pretty much derivative from one strand of Judaism, and Qumran was not in that strand. Neither, judging from Jesus's run-ins with the pharisees, was he, at least insofar as their practices were concerned.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
