The Canon

[Rek Law]

I guess this whole forum is pointless then.

Good Heavens! Why? You never know when somone might write something that could make you (or me) change your (etc) view of something.
I doubt I shall become a pagan as a result of exposure to this site and I very much doubt that I should ever abandon hope in Jesus Christ ... but I can learn enormous insights into relationships and of the nature of God - salvation is a different issue and I am not ready to get into THAT ... I'm still experiencing awe at the amazing plethroa of diversity ... it is like being a kid in Hamleys (...er... a big toy shop in London) being told to choose anything I like to look at and have a go with .... <gasp> Awesome!

...and scales of ignorance are dripping from my eyes daily ... I had never heard of "UU" before. I don't want to be one but I'm glad I now know you are.

Ignorance is The Enemy as much as ... I was going to say Satan but!... (have I just alienated hordes of Satanists here? ... are there any here? ... if so, how does it work, please)?

Discussion is never a waste of time ... my son draws a cartoon called Brian's guide ... his one on WAR says ....
"As the enemy approaches be as cute as possible"
"Then quickly ask them to be friends"

(perhaps I should mention that Brian is a rabbit)

If this forum is a waste of time then I have wasted far too much of mine on this and others like-ish it (I have never found quite like this one)

 

[mormonman]

When scripture was canonized it was in an effort to reign in the meandering beliefs and practices of the people. Of course there are probably myriad books that were not included but the council at Nice decided upon the ones you know today.

Evidence of these other writings were discovered at Nag Hamadi in the 40's. Often these writings are now referred to as the Gnostic gospels.

What do you think of those mormon man?

I've heard about these, but I need to read some stuff about them before I can say anything. I'll get back to you.

 

[JillianMarie77]

Actually, the First Council of Nicea (in Asia Minor, not Nice, which is in France) had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Biblical canon. How many times will I have to correct this myth bandied around as fact? The first council that came up with the NT canon we have today was the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397 (that's 72 years after Nicea I, to be clear) and that was a local council only and so not binding on the entire Church.

Well James you'll probably have to go around correcting it all the time because it is a widely held belief. Could you direct me to an outside source on this? Even a priest I debate with on another forum uses the council Nicean council as a reference point for this. Perhaps Nice was just the beginning of a series of proceedings that culminated with canonization in carthage 72 years later? That seems logical. Initially the church had to establish a creed and then probably study and decide which books supported the choices they made regarding what the creed of beliefs would be.

In any case it doesn't change the point of my post which was the nature (not the exact date or location) of canonization and that there were undoubtedly many many "inspired" writings that the council (councils?) did not approve of.

No need to be condescending when someone has inaccurate information. There are nice ways to share your wisdom =)

 

[Popeyesays]

Well James you'll probably have to go around correcting it all the time because it is a widely held belief. Could you direct me to an outside source on this? Even a priest I debate with on another forum uses the council Nicean council as a reference point for this. Perhaps Nice was just the beginning of a series of proceedings that culminated with canonization in carthage 72 years later? That seems logical. Initially the church had to establish a creed and then probably study and decide which books supported the choices they made regarding what the creed of beliefs would be.

In any case it doesn't change the point of my post which was the nature (not the exact date or location) of canonization and that there were undoubtedly many many "inspired" writings that the council (councils?) did not approve of.

No need to be condescending when someone has inaccurate information. There are nice ways to share your wisdom =)

I can find no historical reference to a council of Nice. I cite here, Wikpedia because its easiest to get to, but no such claim appears in any encyclopedia, nor in visitor's information for the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice,_France

Regards,
Scott

 

[JillianMarie77]

I can find no historical reference to a council of Nice. I cite here, Wikpedia because its easiest to get to, but no such claim appears in any encyclopedia, nor in visitor's information for the city.

It appears I (and then you, by seaching for me) spelled it wrong. Wikipedia does in fact have references to council at nicaea. Two of them. The first in AD 325 and the second in AD 787. See below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Nicaea

Council of Nicaea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Council of Nicaea can refer to:

• First Council of Nicaea in AD 325
• Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787

In the second link it seems implicit that canons did exist prior to carthage. So perhaps it is the "Final" canonization that we know of today that occured there.

 

[JillianMarie77]

I've heard about these, but I need to read some stuff about them before I can say anything. I'll get back to you.

Just so you're comfortable, church's official position on these is that they are useful, even important writings but definitely NOT scriptures. So your recommend won't be in jeopardy should you read further into them. :162:

Elaine Pagels is a theologian and writer and she wrote a great book called "beyond belief the secret gospel of thomas" I really loved it. She also wrote "the gnostic gospels" but she wrote that >20 years ago.

 

[mormonman]

That my young friend is very dangerous thinking. Technically, there is no act you could not commit following that reasoning. I would urge you to reconsider. The idea of a twelve year old having any power or authority, is as laughable, as it is ludicrous.
It also speaks volumes, that those who witnessed such an event turned from said church. Don't you think THAT says something? They were there, you were not.
Correction. You only THINK you know the truth. How much do you know about other faiths such as Islam, Buddhism, Judiasm or even Satanism? I suspect, you know squat. If is fine for you to believe whatever you wish, but do not make the mistake of thinking you alone, or your group, have "the answer". Clearly, you and they, do not. Any insistance to the contrary merely underscores that point.

A twelve year old Deacon holds the Aaronic Priesthood. It's a prepartory priesthood. He has some authority and some power. For example, a Deacon's responsibilities are very limitted. Some of their duties are to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ. Another responlibility of their's is to pass the Sacrament. This is about the extent of thier duties.

The three witnesses NEVER denied the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. If they were making the whole story up about the BoM, wouldn't they say it was false. By the way, two of the three witnesses came back to the Church, and the third kept his testimony until the day he died.

I've studied Judism extensively, or at least OT Judism. I don't think they could be too much different. You don't believe in one true religion? What? And please don't tell me what I know.

 

[mormonman]

Just so you're comfortable, church's official position on these is that they are useful, even important writings but definitely NOT scriptures. So your recommend won't be in jeopardy should you read further into them. :162:

Elaine Pagels is a theologian and writer and she wrote a great book called "beyond belief the secret gospel of thomas" I really loved it. She also wrote "the gnostic gospels" but she wrote that >20 years ago.

Thanks, I'm going to read into them tomorrow. Maybe I'll start a thread about it.

 

[Popeyesays]

It appears I (and then you, by seaching for me) spelled it wrong. Wikipedia does in fact have references to council at nicaea. Two of them. The first in AD 325 and the second in AD 787. See below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Nicaea

Council of Nicaea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Council of Nicaea can refer to:

• First Council of Nicaea in AD 325
• Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787

In the second link it seems implicit that canons did exist prior to carthage. So perhaps it is the "Final" canonization that we know of today that occured there.

I did not misspell it, dear lady. Nicaea is in Asia Minor, Anatolia, I believe.

Nices is in Southern France not terribly far from Marseilles. It was located in the Occitan, a Gallic province. Nice was actually founded by Greek immigrants from the City of Marseilles and was originally known as Nikaea. Which is very similar to the entirely different city of Nicea in Turkish Anatolia, not only in a different country from Nice, but a different continent. The Council of Nicea was held in Nicea in Turkish Anatolia, not Nice, France.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Squirt]

The Council of Nicea was held in Nicea in Turkish Anatolia, not Nice, France.

I didn't know that. I thought Nicea and Nice, France were one and the same.

 

[James the Persian]

Well James you'll probably have to go around correcting it all the time because it is a widely held belief. Could you direct me to an outside source on this? Even a priest I debate with on another forum uses the council Nicean council as a reference point for this. Perhaps Nice was just the beginning of a series of proceedings that culminated with canonization in carthage 72 years later? That seems logical. Initially the church had to establish a creed and then probably study and decide which books supported the choices they made regarding what the creed of beliefs would be.

In any case it doesn't change the point of my post which was the nature (not the exact date or location) of canonization and that there were undoubtedly many many "inspired" writings that the council (councils?) did not approve of.

No need to be condescending when someone has inaccurate information. There are nice ways to share your wisdom =)

Sorry about the tone but I've had to correct this so many times on this forum that it's starting to get frustrating. Nicea I didn't even mention the NT canon (and you can just look up the actual canons of the council on the internet in any number of places) and so it wasn't the beginning of any process of canonisation. There were Church Fathers at the time of Nicea who produced lists of books they considered canonical (which basically just means normative, as a canon is a measuring rod) but these with one exception differ in some way or other from what we now have. The first list from a council was from 397 but that certainly wasn't the end of the process because it was a local council binding on nowhere outside North Africa. Exactly when the Carthaginian canon became accepted by the whole Church (actually one of the Ethiopian NT canons has always been longer, so it wasn't completely universal) is unclear. I would add, though, that when you refer to Nicea II (your second link to wiki) you're referring to a council four centuries later that was called to end the iconoclast heresy. Of course the canon was already decided by that time. I would just note that unlike some churches we do not consider that all books outside the canon are uninspired. Far from it. We accept that books such as the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas are inspired and useful. The Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox view on inspired writings is not so black and white as the usual Protestant view.

James

 

[sojourner]

A twelve year old Deacon holds the Aaronic Priesthood. It's a prepartory priesthood. He has some authority and some power. For example, a Deacon's responsibilities are very limitted. Some of their duties are to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ. Another responlibility of their's is to pass the Sacrament. This is about the extent of thier duties.

The three witnesses NEVER denied the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. If they were making the whole story up about the BoM, wouldn't they say it was false. By the way, two of the three witnesses came back to the Church, and the third kept his testimony until the day he died.

I've studied Judism extensively, or at least OT Judism. I don't think they could be too much different. You don't believe in one true religion? What? And please don't tell me what I know.

You may have studied Judism extensively, but have you studied Judaism extensively? If you had, you would know that there is a big difference between the Temple Judaism prior to 70 c.e. and modern Judaism. When the Temple was finally destroyed in 70 c.e., a fundamental change in theology and practice was forced upon Judaism. Pharisaical Judaism was, finally, the only survivor of the many sects that existed prior. And even that has undergone change from the first century to the present.

I would argue that what the LDS have is belief, which is a very good thing, but not the same thing as proof. You do have truth, but only in part...just like the rest of us.
What you have that makes you unique -- that makes you a people, is your mythos, that is, the language, the praxis, the tradition, the stories, the writings that make up your religious expression, and make that expression an integral part of your life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You may have studied Judism extensively, but have you studied Judaism extensively?

That was a cheap shot, and unworthy of you. Furthermore, the distinction you make can be far too easily exaggerated. The Pharisees were well established before the destruction of the Temple, the Priesthood was encreasingly viewed as politically compromised and theologically questionable, and the forms of worship made necessary by the destruction of the Temple were the same or similar forms forced on the observant by the Diaspora.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry about the tone but I've had to correct this so many times on this forum that it's starting to get frustrating.

I share your frustration.

 

[JillianMarie77]

I'm just going to paste what the priest wrote to me in response to my question about where the canon was canonized:

Let's seen, the Council of Laodicea, produced a list of books similar to today's canon around 360 AD. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, a decree, listed the books of today's canon and it was the Council of Rome was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree...This was in 382 AD. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

It was the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 that ratified the first definitive list of canonical books. The final definition of canonical books for Roman Catholics came from the Council of Trent in 1556 because the Protestant Reformation deleted some of the books of the bible.
<<<"Also this whole "closed canon" thing. Isn't there some provision for papal writings, authority, rule changes - something like that?">>>
Papal writings really don't have anything to do with the canon of the bible. So when the canon was officially closed at Florence and Trent this meant that no other books may be added or subtracted from the current list.


Not many people are familiar with the history of the bible because its kind of confusing. There were several councils, papal decrees that got us to where we are today WRT the current biblical canon...JMO.

 

[Rek Law]

Hopefully Dan will not be too upset by the grammatical errors.

Think of it more as idiosyncratic rather than "error" <sulk>

by the way, I've had some really nice comments appear in my home "User CP" under karma ... how do I acknowledge or reply? ... or what is the correct etiquette, please?

 

[James the Persian]

It was the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 that ratified the first definitive list of canonical books. The final definition of canonical books for Roman Catholics came from the Council of Trent in 1556 because the Protestant Reformation deleted some of the books of the bible.

Do the RCs consider Florence Ecumenical? I'm not so sure about that, but we certainly do not. It was a council designed to reconcile the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches which failed due to the opposition of St. Mark of Ephesus and the Orthodox monastics and laiety. This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest that they even mentioned the canon, though if they had it clearly wouldn't have been considered relevant in the east. They did mention purgatory, the filioque, papal supremacy and various other doctrines with which we disagree, but I'm unaware of any discussion related to canonical scripture.

I'd also note that the Orthodox OT is longer, and always was longer, than the current RC OT as we use the entire Greek Septuagint. None of the earlier councils you mentioned were binding on the entire Church and there was always (at least from the time of St. Jerome) a difference between east and west regarding the OT canons used. The Council of Trent was an RC council only and has no bearing on our Church whatsoever, though we did have a similar local council in Iasi (Romania) also called due to the Reformation when Protestant influences finally made it that far east. It ratified all the Deuterocannonicals and not just the slightly shorter RC list as valid parts of the canon and was accepted by the whole Orthodox Church. We do not, however, consider the RC canon invalid now any more than we did when we were one Church.

James

 

[sojourner]

That was a cheap shot, and unworthy of you. Furthermore, the distinction you make can be far too easily exaggerated. The Pharisees were well established before the destruction of the Temple, the Priesthood was encreasingly viewed as politically compromised and theologically questionable, and the forms of worship made necessary by the destruction of the Temple were the same or similar forms forced on the observant by the Diaspora.

When one comes off as a know-it-all, one tends to get what one deserves. Not to be picayune about spelling -- we all make mistakes -- but when someone makes such a grandiose statement as "I've studied [place subject here] extensively" (implying that I know more about the topic than you do) and then proceeds to misspell the name of the subject twice in the same passage, one has to wonder just how extensive the study was...which leads one to reconsider that person's credibility on the subject.

Yes...it is possible to overstate the difference. But, the theological premise of Temple Judaism was one of sacrifice. No Temple -- no sacrifice. Ancient Judaism was highly geographical and highly sacrificial. After the destruction of the Temple and in the aftermath of the Diaspora, (along with the accompanying "whittling down" of the diversity of the Judaic voice), I suspect the difference between 1st century b.c.e Judaism and 21st century c.e. Judaism is more significant than you intimate here. Perhaps one of our Jewish scholars can shed some light here?