Open canon or closed? [Archive]

Protoevangel

25th June 2006, 10:17 PM

Welcome back James! You really have got to stick around some this time!

"The question of the limits of the canon may be theoretically open; but the history of the church indicates that it is for practical purposes closed."
- Dr. Martin Franzmann, The Word of the Lord Grows
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6633

Then again,
“[Luther] did not pretend that the church could undertake the construction of the canon anew, or that it could function with a canon open at both ends. Never, even at the height of his criticism of James, did he drop it from his editions of the Bible, any more than he dropped the Old Testament Apocrypha. From his own experience he could testify that often a Christian found one or another book of the canon difficult or useless to him at a particular time, only to discover later on that it was just what he needed in a time of trouble or temptation. Had such a person been permitted to re-edit the canon on the basis of his passing mood, he would have been deprived of the patience and comfort of the Scriptures when he needed them most. Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”
- Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 87-88.
Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture (http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther and the canon 2.htm)

JVAC

25th June 2006, 10:25 PM

Thanks, I'll try to stick around a little bit more. It is just that I don't always get as much access to the internet as I would like.

So, those quotes insinuate that the deuterocanonical books have a place. Is that your supposition also, or am I reading too much into it?

-James

Protoevangel

25th June 2006, 10:40 PM

I do regret that they are absent from most translations today, yes. Oh, to read Tobit in the New King James Version!

JVAC

25th June 2006, 10:55 PM

I do admit, when I first read Tobit I was hard pressed to find it in harmony with the gospels. However, after listening to some new voices I do see a connection. Not to mention I love the picture of Raphael running down the demon and binding him up!

Yet in like manner I see, especially Esther, in disagreement with the message of the gospels. Esther is a story of selfishness, and oportunism. No message about God, but rather death to those who oppose Israel. It gives much to the "anti-pacifists" but little else. Even the great Bishop Athanasius, Pope of the East, kicked this one out of the canon. Would you think that congregations should be able to kick this one out as well? (Athanasius is a more well known example but there are others as well).

-James

Protoevangel

25th June 2006, 11:18 PM

Yet in like manner I see, especially Esther, in disagreement with the message of the gospels. Esther is a story of selfishness, and oportunism. No message about God, but rather death to those who oppose Israel. It gives much to the "anti-pacifists" but little else. Even the great Bishop Athanasius, Pope of the East, kicked this one out of the canon. Would you think that congregations should be able to kick this one out as well? (Athanasius is a more well known example but there are others as well).

-James
Personally, I see Esther as an exemplar of Christ, much like Abraham, Daniel, etc. The world seeks and plots the destruction of her (His) people, but in the end, her (His) people are saved, and it is the world that will perish. Pure Gospel.

There is Gospel in the book of Ruth as well; I see Boaz in the role of Redeemer to our Ruth.

ByzantineDixie

26th June 2006, 01:59 AM

“[Luther] did not pretend that the church could undertake the construction of the canon anew, or that it could function with a canon open at both ends. Never, even at the height of his criticism of James, did he drop it from his editions of the Bible, any more than he dropped the Old Testament Apocrypha. From his own experience he could testify that often a Christian found one or another book of the canon difficult or useless to him at a particular time, only to discover later on that it was just what he needed in a time of trouble or temptation. Had such a person been permitted to re-edit the canon on the basis of his passing mood, he would have been deprived of the patience and comfort of the Scriptures when he needed them most. Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”
- Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 87-88.
Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture (http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther and the canon 2.htm)

This is a great little nugget from Pelikan (memory eternal!). What do you think he meant by this:

"That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contraditions."

And James...I agree with Dan...welcome back and don't be a stranger! (Don't know if you recall...this is the former Luther's Rose...I traveled from Wittenberg to Athens.)

Edial

26th June 2006, 07:11 AM

Is the Bible an open canon or a closed canon? Can it be added to or taken away from? (please elaborate on your answers, "no, then why"; "Yes, then why". What are your sources for your opinion?)

As Lutherans, I don't recall any formal proclamation of canon that comes to mind, is there one?

-James

(P.S. I vote we get rid of Esther and Ruth, and bring back 1&2Maccabees, tobit, Baruch and the additions to Daniel. [This said to encourage dialogue, but is also my opinion ;) ])
We are Lutherans.

We need to go by what Christ went. We have no other choice.:)

He went by the Jewish canon that had the same books then that we currently have in our OT.
Christ's approval confirms that these are the word of God.
(Check any SAFRA Judaic book store - same books as our OT).

Christ ignored the Apocrypha by never referring to it in the context of the word of God.

Since our current OT cannon is the word of God, and since it is accepted by Christ as the word of God, and since it says,
PR 30:6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
... Apocrypha has no place in it.

Thanks,
Ed

JVAC

26th June 2006, 08:55 AM

JVAC

26th June 2006, 09:06 AM

JVAC

26th June 2006, 09:11 AM

This is a great little nugget from Pelikan (memory eternal!). What do you think he meant by this:

"That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contraditions."

And James...I agree with Dan...welcome back and don't be a stranger! (Don't know if you recall...this is the former Luther's Rose...I traveled from Wittenberg to Athens.)

Nice to hear from you Rose, or is it Dixie? To athens seems like a long pilgrimage. I trust you are enjoying the smells and bells! I have come to the realization that I am far too much an Augustinian to ever be able to join you, however. That African has one amazing theology, though his ecclesiology needs help at times.

What is your voice on this matter, seeing your new communion status, it isn't hard to guess, but it would be nice to hear your reflections on your stance. Care to bless our eyes with your voice?

-James

Protoevangel

26th June 2006, 09:24 AM

This is a great little nugget from Pelikan (memory eternal!). What do you think he meant by this:

"That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contraditions."

And James...I agree with Dan...welcome back and don't be a stranger! (Don't know if you recall...this is the former Luther's Rose...I traveled from Wittenberg to Athens.)
But he was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.

It was never his intention to have the Apocrypha to be removed from the canon. He simply followed the Church's lead in recognizing their disputed status. He still included and treasured them, but not a primary source of Doctrine.

Protoevangel

26th June 2006, 09:41 AM

Dan,

I could hardly call Esther a Christ figure. She is motivated after being threatened. She acts in self interest. Surely Christ didn't act because he thought he would be shown no quarter. Surely the cross doesn't triumph with a bloody coup, but rather with a self-sacrificing love. Esther's self-interest, and self-preservation doesn't seem to be in harmony with this message.

Also no mercy is shown to Haaman and his ilk. This theology reaks of "Don't mess with texas". It seems to say those of you against us will soon perish because Israel is the better race (the intimation is that YHWH has made this the case). The killing of thousands seem to be justified in these pages all because "Israel was opposed". There is no mention about God, just Israel.

How is this message reconciled with the Gospel of the Sermon on the mount?

-James
Did not Abraham "give" his wife away on more than one occasion, and sleep with his wife's servant because he couldn't wait on God's promise? Did not David, "the man after God's own heart", lust after another man's wife, sleep with her, and have her husband killed to cover up his deed? Were any of the Prophets, heros and Patriarchs a perfect example? God uses His people, despite their personal failures to tell His story.

Do you want to throw out Joshua too, because the story it tells is bloody and merciless? How about individual stories, like when Elisha had the 42 children mauled by bears? How do you reconcile that with the Sermon on the mount?

Edial

26th June 2006, 09:49 AM

Edial,

Actually the scriptures that Jesus used is up for debate. Deuterocanonical and Pseudopigraphical books were very much used during the time of Jesus. We know the Apostles and the early congregations used these books, St Jude even used the pseudopigraphical work "The Book of Enoch" to prove his point.

The OT as you know it wasn't inovated until a later date. There is wide speculation on when this happened, and until we find new archeological evidence, it will remain just that. Let me also say, just because the jews have a canon, that doesn't mean that this is authortitative for the Church.

With respect to Jesus "never using it in the 'word of God'" I think this is very unfounded. We only posess a small number of what Jesus did and said, as St John the Evangelist is quick to point out in the conclusion of his Gospel. While the canonical gospels don't contain (to the best of my knowledge) direct citations from deuterocanonical books, they have very similar themes and add much to the context of the bible. Jesus' teaching on alms is found in Tobit, the context of Jesus' time is found in 1&2 Macabees as well as Daniel and his additions.

The fact of the matter is, the protestant canon never truly existed in catholic use of the Church. The failure of this canon to gain catholic acceptance should be well observed by christians. Who's word do we take on canonization? Do we take the Jews, who have denounced Christ and his followers (that is through anathema prayers in the synagogue 70-150AD) or do we take the canons of the Church?
-James
The very idea of Lutheranism is to point out the Church's fallibility as far as the infallibility is concerned.

The Church can add and subtract all that she wants concerning the OT. And she does when she pleases to do so. :)

However, the testimony of Jesus of the Jewish canon never changed.
It is a word of God.

The writers in the Bible refer to other writings, but only as references for various information, not the text inspired by God.

Apocripha is a writing that cannot be associated with the Scriptures as far as the inspiration is concerned.

Jesus ignored it.

That should be sufficient for a Lutheran.

I have them. I read them. I found the message startlingly different from that of the Bible.
Salvation from works, prayers to the dead are in them.

Overconfidence in overcoming tortures on an inhuman level and a sickening picture of a mother watching a slow roasting of her sons by fire yet standing her ground, is a message of Maccabees for not denying the faith.

Yet Peter did and was forgiven. :)

Church Fathers chucked these as Scriptures.

Christ ignored these as Scriptures.

But Church says, "Why not?"

The point is, the Church was saying "Why not?" to too many things. :)

Thanks,
Ed

ByzantineDixie

26th June 2006, 01:15 PM

It was never his intention to have the Apocrypha to be removed from the canon. He simply followed the Church's lead in recognizing their disputed status. He still included and treasured them, but not a primary source of Doctrine.

But what contraditions would have resulted if Luther had modified the canon? I only can think of one...wondered if there were others.-----R

Edial

26th June 2006, 03:00 PM

But what contraditions would have resulted if Luther had modified the canon? I only can think of one...wondered if there were others.-----R
Martin Luther could not have modified the OT canon.

He was way too close to the influence of Jesus Christ.:)

Jesus accepted the old Jewish canon as is,
... because Jesus accepted it as is.

There is NO way around that.

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Churches might not like this argument, but since these guys decided (on their own) that their authority is supreme in many ways, what is the surprise?

This is not complex at all.

It is plain.

Sometimes we ask children: "What would Jesus do?"
Well, he did it 2000 years ago. He received the OT canon as is.

Thanks,
Ed

BigNorsk

26th June 2006, 03:35 PM

Seems to me that in practice the Catholic church has basically chosen to agree with Luther. They sure don't use the Deterocanonical books for much at all. Pretty well ignored, but just can't reverse their "infallible" rulings.

As has been pointed out Luther didn't create a new canon. He recognized the Hebrew canon (it would basically have been the canon of the Pharisees), who while their lives were a mess, their theology was basically correct, Jesus instructed the people to do what the Pharisees taught, not what they did.

Marv

ByzantineDixie

26th June 2006, 03:43 PM

Martin Luther could not have modified the OT canon.

He was way too close to the influence of Jesus Christ.:)

Jesus accepted the old Jewish canon as is,
... because Jesus accepted it as is.

There is NO way around that.

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Churches might not like this argument, but since these guys decided (on their own) that their authority is supreme in many ways, what is the surprise?

This is not complex at all.

It is plain.

Sometimes we ask children: "What would Jesus do?"
Well, he did it 2000 years ago. He received the OT canon as is.

Thanks,
Ed

Pelikan is not saying Luther ONLY kept the Jewish canon...in fact, he says just the opposite (and Pelikan is an unquestionable authority on Luther--in fact, he translated 22 of the 55 books in Luther's Works). He points out that Luther did not unilaterally remove the deutrocanonical books from the Bible. That is a historical fact. He classified these books as he did Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude and Revelations, but he did not remove them.

The point both Dan and James are making is that these books are part of the received text of the Scriptures of catholic church.

You can argue with them about it...they are Lutherans. You know you and I aren't going to be on the same page with this. :)

ByzantineDixie

26th June 2006, 03:57 PM

But what contraditions would have resulted if Luther had modified the canon? I only can think of one...wondered if there were others.-----R

BTW...the contradiction I was thinking of, had Luther actually removed the deuterocanonical books, were with these confessional statements:

This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers.

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons...

ByzantineDixie

26th June 2006, 04:22 PM

Nice to hear from you Rose, or is it Dixie?

Rose still works well...although the newer folks only know me as Dixie.

To athens seems like a long pilgrimage. I trust you are enjoying the smells and bells!

Well, I didn't head East because it sounded, smelled and looked good...in fact I was more low church and all that was a bit of a hurdle for me. But the journey was not about preferences. Of course, since then I have come to greatly treasure worship with smells and bells and all the visuals. And besides...an iconostasis sure beats the heck out of a powerpoint screen!

I have come to the realization that I am far too much an Augustinian to ever be able to join you, however. That African has one amazing theology, though his ecclesiology needs help at times.

Personally I prefer his mom. Besides one man's theology does not a church catholic make. But you know that.

What is your voice on this matter, seeing your new communion status, it isn't hard to guess, but it would be nice to hear your reflections on your stance. Care to bless our eyes with your voice?

The Church received the texts of Scripture...at this late date in Christianity could more texts come? Could some be stripped away? From a pragmatic perspective...no...for many reasons. But...I am not going to tell the Holy Spirit where He can and cannot work. An Ecumenical Council guided by the Holy Spirit would certainly be in a position to address the canon.

Colabomb

26th June 2006, 05:52 PM

We are Lutherans.

We need to go by what Christ went. We have no other choice.:)

He went by the Jewish canon that had the same books then that we currently have in our OT.
Christ's approval confirms that these are the word of God.
(Check any SAFRA Judaic book store - same books as our OT).

Christ ignored the Apocrypha by never referring to it in the context of the word of God.

Since our current OT cannon is the word of God, and since it is accepted by Christ as the word of God, and since it says,
PR 30:6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
... Apocrypha has no place in it.

Thanks,
Ed
Jesus used the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon.

(Too close to debate?)

Melethiel

26th June 2006, 05:59 PM

(Too close to debate?)

We don't mind. :P

Colabomb

26th June 2006, 06:02 PM

We don't mind. :P
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]
Cool.

Y'all are mary worshiping, Death Cookie Eatin', hoity toity liturgical robe wearing Catholic wannabes, and you'll burn in hell for it!

(Just kidding.)

Colabomb

26th June 2006, 06:05 PM

The very idea of Lutheranism is to point out the Church's fallibility as far as the infallibility is concerned.

The Church can add and subtract all that she wants concerning the OT. And she does when she pleases to do so. :)

However, the testimony of Jesus of the Jewish canon never changed.
It is a word of God.

The writers in the Bible refer to other writings, but only as references for various information, not the text inspired by God.

Apocripha is a writing that cannot be associated with the Scriptures as far as the inspiration is concerned.

Jesus ignored it.

That should be sufficient for a Lutheran.

I have them. I read them. I found the message startlingly different from that of the Bible.
Salvation from works, prayers to the dead are in them.

Overconfidence in overcoming tortures on an inhuman level and a sickening picture of a mother watching a slow roasting of her sons by fire yet standing her ground, is a message of Maccabees for not denying the faith.

Yet Peter did and was forgiven. :)

Church Fathers chucked these as Scriptures.

Christ ignored these as Scriptures.

But Church says, "Why not?"

The point is, the Church was saying "Why not?" to too many things. :)

Thanks,
Ed

Jesus didn't quote from many books from what you call the Jewish Canon.

And to be honest, it could be argued that the true Jewish canon includes the deuterocanon.

Edial

26th June 2006, 09:39 PM

Jesus didn't quote from many books from what you call the Jewish Canon.
:D :) .
Books of Moses, that's 5.
All the Prophets, 17
Solomon in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs
Psalms
History ... , or I should say, "the rest is history ... "

LK 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

JN 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

MT 22:37 Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

LK 20:41 Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

And to be honest, it could be argued that the true Jewish canon includes the deuterocanon.

Go to a SAFRA Judaic book store, ask the rabbis what canon they use.
The same one the Pharisees used.
Then compare it to our OT - same thing.
Maybe Chronicles are combined into one book. But these are details.
Same as our OT.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

26th June 2006, 09:51 PM

Jesus used the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon.

(Too close to debate?)
Debate about what?
Paul read Septuagint.
Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament, ... since he was 12. :)

Old habits are hard to break. :)

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

26th June 2006, 10:09 PM

JVAC

26th June 2006, 10:34 PM

The very idea of Lutheranism is to point out the Church's fallibility as far as the infallibility is concerned.

I wouldn't necessarily agree, I think it was intended to be a corrective voice, a voice to call the Church to return to what it was.

The Church can add and subtract all that she wants concerning the OT. And she does when she pleases to do so. :)

I agree with this statement, but I think you intend these couple of sentence to have a pejoritive tone.

However, the testimony of Jesus of the Jewish canon never changed.
It is a word of God.

I strongly disagree with you on this point. Never was there a canon of Jewish Scripture during the time of Jesus, this is historically true. Jesus did not put his picture on a version of the canon and endorse it. Jesus didn't use many books, if he didn't use them should we toss them out?

The writers in the Bible refer to other writings, but only as references for various information, not the text inspired by God.

The authors of the biblical texts often would not credit the texts as being "inspired", nor is there any tone of difference when a source other than a "canonical" source is used. Enoch has just as much validity to Jude as any other testimony. St Paul, when citing scripture, took no care with it, rather he would often misquote texts in order to prove his own points. It is clear that the early Christians thought along the lines of St Ignatius of Antioch who refused to give in to the Judaizers who said Jesus wasn't what the Church taught because it was not in the "scriptures"; he thus replied, "But to me the official record is Jesus Christ, the inviolable record is His Cross and His death and His Resurrection and the faith of which He is the Author." (Epistle to the Philadelphians 110AD) St Ignatius reasserts that the importance is not any text, but the Faith of Jesus, and how that is being understood in the Holy Church.

Apocripha is a writing that cannot be associated with the Scriptures as far as the inspiration is concerned.

How so?

Jesus ignored it.

This is unable to be proven. Not only do we have no records of Jesus first hand, we probably have only one gospel that could have been written by a witness of Jesus. These Gospels are not Biographies as much as they are "Theologically motivated highlights of Jesus Ministry" and each of these clearly emphasize a different characteristic of Jesus teaching. Also, what is to say that non-canonical gospels do not have true quotes of Jesus? You have let the "Church" tell you which Gospel to use but you won't let it tell you what else to read?

That should be sufficient for a Lutheran.

Actually, it cannot be sufficient. The reformation called for dialogue, a true researching of the matter. Simply, "Jesus said so" doesn't work, if it did, Martin Luther would have said "revoco" when the Pope said, "Do it because Jesus said I'm in charge". Rather we must take up good theology, and good scholarship.

I have them. I read them. I found the message startlingly different from that of the Bible.
Salvation from works, prayers to the dead are in them.

Overconfidence in overcoming tortures on an inhuman level and a sickening picture of a mother watching a slow roasting of her sons by fire yet standing her ground, is a message of Maccabees for not denying the faith.

This is your individual interpretation, however, as the Church we must take a communal interpretation, as we have done in the past and must do now.

With respect to Maccabees, I do think you miss the greater point, but that is the topic for another thread.

Yet Peter did and was forgiven. :)

This story emphasizes forgiveness, the previous story emphasizes constancy of Faith. I doubt anyone would argue that constancy of Faith is something that should not be had.

Church Fathers chucked these as Scriptures.

Eroneous!! The Church Fathers religously kept these and expounded on these. They even celebrated feast days around these stories. The Fathers have given us a treasure through these texts.

Christ ignored these as Scriptures.

An argument that doesn't well hold up, where is your first hand document of this? It is more probable He used them, because of their popularity.

But Church says, "Why not?"

The Church has not diffinitively addressed the issue and that is why we take up dialogue.

The point is, the Church was saying "Why not?" to too many things. :)

See comment above.

Thanks for the opportunity of further dialogue, I hope we continue in this most lutheran of activities.

-James

Protoevangel

26th June 2006, 10:38 PM

JVAC

26th June 2006, 10:41 PM

Did not Abraham "give" his wife away on more than one occasion, and sleep with his wife's servant because he couldn't wait on God's promise? Did not David, "the man after God's own heart", lust after another man's wife, sleep with her, and have her husband killed to cover up his deed? Were any of the Prophets, heros and Patriarchs a perfect example? God uses His people, despite their personal failures to tell His story.

Yes, it is not the story but themes that are quite important. What the book does as a whole. That is what should be focused on, what does this myth tell us. In this respect, Genesis tells us about relationships and God's covenental love. Kings tell us about God's relationship with a fallen kingdom. But Esther tells us of a woman looking out for her own skin.

Do you want to throw out Joshua too, because the story it tells is bloody and merciless? How about individual stories, like when Elisha had the 42 children mauled by bears? How do you reconcile that with the Sermon on the mount?

This second part goes well with the above reply, that we should look at the over all teaching of the book. Let the myths weave together and bring out a meaning in harmony with Christ. It is very difficult to do with Esther. Esther's entire book is difficult. That is my problem. I have no doubt there are negative examples in Scripture, but never is an entire book a negative example.

-James

LutherNut

26th June 2006, 11:14 PM

Jesus used the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon.

(Too close to debate?)

This is not true!

Jesus "used" and read from the Scriptures used in the Temple and the synagogues. They used the Hebrew texts. The "deuterocanon" was written mainly in Greek, and Greek texts were not read in the Temple or synagogues.
Therefore, Jesus did not "use" the LXX.

Also, FYI, the LXX also includes several books that the Roman church does not consider canonical, such as 3 and 4 Macabees, 3 and 4 Esdras, Pslam 151, and others. The argument that "the LXX is the Bible Jesus used and is the official canon" is pure poppycock!

JVAC

26th June 2006, 11:29 PM

Luthernut,

While the texts were mainly written in greek, there are still some that were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. This said, these writtings were greatly important to the Jewish people of that time. These books would have been welcome into the Synagoge of Jesus time and probably would have been used in Sermons. They were rejected after they were assumed into christian usage.

Jesus never was recorded to have read from the Song of Songs, can we get rid of that?

-James

Edial

27th June 2006, 12:33 AM

I wouldn't necessarily agree, I think it was intended to be a corrective voice, a voice to call the Church to return to what it was.

I agree with this statement, but I think you intend these couple of sentence to have a pejoritive tone.
Holy Spirit authored the Scriptures.
The writers penned it.

These were written in order to correct the Church, keep it intact and in place and from going away from the Scriptures.

2TI 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Church has no authority over the Scriptures.
Even the writers of the Scriptures yjemselves gave up their authority over that what they wrote and gave it to Holy Spirit.

I strongly disagree with you on this point. Never was there a canon of Jewish Scripture during the time of Jesus, this is historically true. Jesus did not put his picture on a version of the canon and endorse it. Jesus didn't use many books, if he didn't use them should we toss them out?.
The reason Christianity exists is not because of other books, but because of Jesus.

Other books is not the Judaic canon of the times.

That same canon is kept by today's Judaics.
Although they would love to be different from the Christians in that, they cannot. They still have the same books that the OT consists of.

What they read then, they read now.

And Jesus DID authorized the OT by his words.
See my later posts here for more itemized description.

The authors of the biblical texts often would not credit the texts as being "inspired", ...
Jesus accepted the Jewish canon (OT) as the word of God.
NT also states that ALL Scriptures are inspired.
If one starts cross-referencing one would see that Peter for example called Paul's writings as Scriptures, and so forth.

2PE 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

... nor is there any tone of difference when a source other than a "canonical" source is used. Enoch has just as much validity to Jude as any other testimony. ...
You have no idea what Jude thought.
Enoch was referenced as reading OUTSIDE of Scriptures.

We have other readings also.

When we put these at par with the Scriptures, we make the uninspired text inspired.
And with the same motion we make the inspired text uninspired.

... St Paul, when citing scripture, took no care with it, rather he would often misquote texts in order to prove his own points. ...
So did Christ.
They were paraphrasing. And their paraphrases are Scriptures and are inspired.

... It is clear that the early Christians thought along the lines of St Ignatius of Antioch who refused to give in to the Judaizers who said Jesus wasn't what the Church taught because it was not in the "scriptures"; he thus replied, "But to me the official record is Jesus Christ, the inviolable record is His Cross and His death and His Resurrection and the faith of which He is the Author." (Epistle to the Philadelphians 110AD) St Ignatius reasserts that the importance is not any text, but the Faith of Jesus, and how that is being understood in the Holy Church....
Jesus is the essense.
Scriptures describe him.
Without them the Church would not understand him.

Church does not have a special revelation.
They have Scriptures, the same ones that we have.

Once again, Scriptures are there to keep the Church from going outside of them.

... This is unable to be proven. Not only do we have no records of Jesus first hand, we probably have only one gospel that could have been written by a witness of Jesus. These Gospels are not Biographies as much as they are "Theologically motivated highlights of Jesus Ministry" and each of these clearly emphasize a different characteristic of Jesus teaching. Also, what is to say that non-canonical gospels do not have true quotes of Jesus? You have let the "Church" tell you which Gospel to use but you won't let it tell you what else to read?....
The Church has no knowledge outside of Scriptures.

Your quote here already disqualifies the Scriptural authority.

Church has no authority by itself outside of Scriptures, because if not for the Scriptures they would be "unemployed mystics" that chase widows for their houses.

The Scriptures give them authority.

They cannot give authority to the Scriptures, since these Scriptures were written so to keep an eye on them.

... Actually, it cannot be sufficient. The reformation called for dialogue, a true researching of the matter. Simply, "Jesus said so" doesn't work, if it did, Martin Luther would have said "revoco" when the Pope said, "Do it because Jesus said I'm in charge". Rather we must take up good theology, and good scholarship.
And these are based on Scriptures, since Jesus made his theology and scholarship on Scriptures.

MT 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

And "Yes", we do things because Jesus did them.

We follow him.

JN 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

... This is your individual interpretation, however, as the Church we must take a communal interpretation, as we have done in the past and must do now..
And the Scriptures must keep the Church from going outside of the Scriptures.

... With respect to Maccabees, I do think you miss the greater point, but that is the topic for another thread...
I know what I read.

... This story emphasizes forgiveness, the previous story emphasizes constancy of Faith. I doubt anyone would argue that constancy of Faith is something that should not be had....
The Maccabees story of a widow watching her sons die while being tortured one at a time and "keeping her faith" is a salvation by suffering.

Peter's denial of Christ and his salvation presents salvation by grace through faith.

... Eroneous!! The Church Fathers religously kept these and expounded on these. They even celebrated feast days around these stories. The Fathers have given us a treasure through these texts.....
OT Apocrypha is from the Jews, not the Church Fathers.

The Jews and the Christ ignored them as Scriptures.

... An argument that doesn't well hold up, where is your first hand document of this? It is more probable He used them, because of their popularity.....

NY Times is also popular.

... Thanks for the opportunity of further dialogue, I hope we continue in this most lutheran of activities.

-James
No problem.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Protoevangel

27th June 2006, 01:17 AM

Yes, it is not the story but themes that are quite important. What the book does as a whole. That is what should be focused on, what does this myth tell us. In this respect, Genesis tells us about relationships and God's covenental love. Kings tell us about God's relationship with a fallen kingdom. But Esther tells us of a woman looking out for her own skin.

This second part goes well with the above reply, that we should look at the over all teaching of the book. Let the myths weave together and bring out a meaning in harmony with Christ. It is very difficult to do with Esther. Esther's entire book is difficult. That is my problem. I have no doubt there are negative examples in Scripture, but never is an entire book a negative example.

-James
You say Esther was motivated by nothing but selfish interests. Clement says, "Esther also, being perfect in faith..." St. Athanasius sais, "And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety."

Even the Bible gives no such hint that selfishness was Esther's primary motivation, "Then Esther spoke to Hathach, and gave him a command for Mordecai: 'All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that any man or woman who goes into the inner court to the king, who has not been called, he has but one law: put all to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter, that he may live. Yet I myself have not been called to go in to the king these thirty days.'"

What good could she do her people if she were dead? Was there no other way she could help her people?

"O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me..."

"And Mordecai told them to answer Esther: “Do not think in your heart that you will escape in the king’s palace any more than all the other Jews. For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?'"

No, this is your purpose.

"Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai: 'Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!'"

"My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me."

"...nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

Because of the Eighth Commandment, I would rather speak well of Esther, and put the best construction on everything I read of her that isn't explicitly condemning. You see only negativity in Esther, I think you need to read it with new eyes.

Esther was approved by Clement, The Council of Rome, Hippo, CarthageIII, Augustine, Innocent I, etc. The book is included in not only Prostetant Bibles, but Catholic, Greek, Coptic, Slavonic, etc., even while other books are disputed among the fifferent canons... The clear (albiet not unanymous) testimony of the church catholic speaks to include Esther. In addition, much like the Apocrypha, Esther was included in the Septuagint, which was the Bible most commonly in use when Paul wrote "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

I argue for Esther's inclusion, not authoratatively, not as a matter of dogma, not as an expert, but as a plea to a fellow catholic, orthodox, confessional, true Lutheran brother... Too much has been ripped off and torn down and stripped away by the Reformed and Baptist influence, and some of those who even falsly claim to be Lutheran. When Luther questioned the apocrypha and antilegomena, he stated his opinions, but he never tried to "get rid" of any of the canon as it was handed down (see your OP ref to Esther and Ruth).

Jim47

27th June 2006, 06:36 AM

Mod hat on

Closed for staff review.

Jim47

27th June 2006, 04:56 PM

Mod hat on

I have re-opened this thread and encourage you all to resume posting, but I would also like to remind you to obey the forum rules. In particular rule 2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members; Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian; Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; Threats of any sort.

This can easily be overlooked in our zeal in an attempt to debate what we feel are true Lutheran teachings. If anyone has a question please PM me.

Thanks
Jim :wave:

Mod hat off :thumbsup:

C.F.W. Walther

27th June 2006, 05:03 PM

I must have missed something. I didn't see any violation to the "flame" rule. Just curious.

LilLamb219

27th June 2006, 05:19 PM

I must have missed something. I didn't see any violation to the "flame" rule. Just curious.

MT 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

There goes Jesus again, getting into trouble ;)

Everyone knows I'm just trying to make a joke, right??? :D Please don't ban me!

Jim47

27th June 2006, 05:54 PM

There goes Jesus again, getting into trouble ;)

Everyone knows I'm just trying to make a joke, right??? :D Please don't ban me!

What? Making jokes again? :thumbsup:

DaRev

27th June 2006, 06:10 PM

C.F.W. Walther

27th June 2006, 06:58 PM

There goes Jesus again, getting into trouble ;)

Everyone knows I'm just trying to make a joke, right??? :D Please don't ban me!

LOL ;) :D

Edial

27th June 2006, 10:43 PM

Actually, their doctrine of Purgatory is based upon the Apochrypha.
I find the doctrine of Purgatory especially troublesome.

Out of all the Roman Catholics that I know and spoke to personally concerning this, I do not know one who thinks that he/she will bypass the Purgatory.

And I feel for them, I really do.

If I could I would just start shaking them and say: "Snap out of it!"
But I cannot.
They are at their deathbeds, frail and afraid!
And since they lived normal human lives and messed up as any of us did, sins accummulate.
Thoughts burn.
Satan rejoices.

Oh, the grace of God.

I am not even talking of a doctrinal fallacy here.

I am talking about a spiritual slavery that many Catholics are bound by through Purgatory of the Apochrypha.

So who needs the Apochrypha when Purgatory is derived from it?

What Would Jesus Do? He did it.

He ignored the Apochrypha for a reason.

He always does something for a reason. That's how he does it.

Following him is not only doing what he does, but also "not doing" that what he ignores.

If we are just doing his teachings and "not doing" that what he ignores, we are not following him, but just his teachings.

Following Christ also means avoiding that what he avoids.

And then others are saying: "Listen to what Church says concerning Apochrypha. Accept Apochrypha because the Church knows".

Knows what that is not in the Scriptures? What?

Poor souls are on deathbeds petrified with fear and concern because they are taught Apochrypha since they are little.
No peace. No peace.

Yet Jesus saves, despite of such teachings.:)

2TI 2:13 if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,:)
for he cannot disown himself.

Oh the mysteries of God's grace.

He saves us despite of ourselves.:)

Thanks,
Ed

Colabomb

28th June 2006, 09:17 AM

I find the doctrine of Purgatory especially troublesome.

Out of all the Roman Catholics that I know and spoke to personally concerning this, I do not know one who thinks that he/she will bypass the Purgatory.

And I feel for them, I really do.

If I could I would just start shaking them and say: "Snap out of it!"
But I cannot.
They are at their deathbeds, frail and afraid!
And since they lived normal human lives and messed up as any of us did, sins accummulate.
Thoughts burn.
Satan rejoices.

Oh, the grace of God.

I am not even talking of a doctrinal fallacy here.

I am talking about a spiritual slavery that many Catholics are bound by through Purgatory of the Apochrypha.

So who needs the Apochrypha when Purgatory is derived from it?

What Would Jesus Do? He did it.

He ignored the Apochrypha for a reason.

He always does something for a reason. That's how he does it.

Following him is not only doing what he does, but also "not doing" that what he ignores.

If we are just doing his teachings and "not doing" that what he ignores, we are not following him, but just his teachings.

Following Christ also means avoiding that what he avoids.

And then others are saying: "Listen to what Church says concerning Apochrypha. Accept Apochrypha because the Church knows".

Knows what that is not in the Scriptures? What?

Poor souls are on deathbeds petrified with fear and concern because they are taught Apochrypha since they are little.
No peace. No peace.

Yet Jesus saves, despite of such teachings.:)

2TI 2:13 if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,:)
for he cannot disown himself.

Oh the mysteries of God's grace.

He saves us despite of ourselves.:)

Thanks,
Ed
Dear brother, you are ignoring the fact that Jesus "Ignored" many books of what you call the Jewish Canon.

He never quoted from Ruth or the Song of Solomon.

Edial

28th June 2006, 05:00 PM

Dear brother, you are ignoring the fact that Jesus "Ignored" many books of what you call the Jewish Canon.

He never quoted from Ruth or the Song of Solomon.
I understand what you are saying. :)

However,
Jesus received the Hebrew canon (our OT).
I am not aware of any false doctrines derived from the Hebrew canon. Ruth and Song of Songs are a part of that canon.

Jesus ignored the Apochrypha.
I am aware of several false doctrines evolving from the Apochrypha that are practiced vigorously today.

Thanks,
Ed

Colabomb

28th June 2006, 05:27 PM

Edial

28th June 2006, 06:16 PM

If the Apocrypha is Scripture, those doctrines are not incorrect.
Lutheranism exists because these doctrines that are derived from the Apochrypha are incorrect.

And since the Roman Catholic Church admittedly (although not officially) recognizes Lutheranism as a call for the Church to go where it was before, the very existance of Lutheranism is a stamp that Roman Catholicism produced doctrines that are in conflict with the Scriptures.

Therefore, one needs to listen to the call of the Lutherans, otherwise the dialogue that many from the Roman Catholic Church are seeking is in vain.

Thanks,
Ed

LutherNut

28th June 2006, 06:38 PM

If the Apocrypha is Scripture, those doctrines are not incorrect.

The Apochrypha is not Scripture. Scripture cannot contradict itself. There are things in the Apochrypha that contradict the true message of the Gospel that runs throughout the Scriptures.

Since the Apochrypha is not Scripture, it's pretty much a moot point.

ByzantineDixie

28th June 2006, 11:49 PM

I understand what you are saying. :)

However,
Jesus received the Hebrew canon (our OT).
I am not aware of any false doctrines derived from the Hebrew canon. Ruth and Song of Songs are a part of that canon.

Jesus ignored the Apochrypha.
I am aware of several false doctrines evolving from the Apochrypha that are practiced vigorously today.

False doctrines have sprung from the OT books not in dispute...the first of which presents itself in the Book of Acts regarding the need to still observe the Jewish Ceremonial Laws of circumcision and diet.

Then there is the whole prosperity gospel of today based on Jeremiah 29:11.

False doctrine isn't necessarily the result of an uninspired book but rather is the result of sinful men twisting and contorting the Scriptures into novel interpretations that have historically never been expressed as part of the Christian faith.

Edial

29th June 2006, 12:46 AM

False doctrines have sprung from the OT books not in dispute...the first of which presents itself in the Book of Acts regarding the need to still observe the Jewish Ceremonial Laws of circumcision and diet.

Then there is the whole prosperity gospel of today based on Jeremiah 29:11.

False doctrine isn't necessarily the result of an uninspired book but rather is the result of sinful men twisting and contorting the Scriptures into novel interpretations that have historically never been expressed as part of the Christian faith.
What you quoted are perversions of a doctrine.
These are easily refuted by the rest of the Scriptures.

Purgatory and prayers for the dead are Apochryphal statements that are not disproved anywhere in the Apochrypha.

These are Apochryphal "truths", which the Scriptures deny.

That makes them false doctrines and not perversions of true doctrines, at least in the context of this conversation.

Thanks,
Ed

Colabomb

29th June 2006, 08:25 AM

What you quoted are perversions of a doctrine.
These are easily refuted by the rest of the Scriptures.

Purgatory and prayers for the dead are Apochryphal statements that are not disproved anywhere in the Apochrypha.

These are Apochryphal "truths", which the Scriptures deny.

That makes them false doctrines and not perversions of true doctrines, at least in the context of this conversation.

Thanks,
Ed
If the Apocrypha are Scriptural, than the Scripture supports them.

ByzantineDixie

29th June 2006, 09:32 AM

I disagree. The Orthodox maintain these texts as part of the Scriptures and do not have a doctrine of Purgatory--so what we have is a "perversion" as you described it. Further, prayers for the dead have always been a component of the Christian Church--not that such prayers earn merit but rather for the sake of the faithful. Later today, when I have access to my files I will document the historic and correct understanding of prayers for the dead--apart from the medieval perversion of merit.

Any twisting of these texts to imply merit is a perversion--not a problem with the texts themselves.

Colabomb

29th June 2006, 09:38 AM

DaRev

29th June 2006, 10:20 AM

If the Apocrypha are Scriptural, than the Scripture supports them.

Dear Exploding Soda Man;) ,

As our Barefoot Buddy stated above, the Apochrypha is not on par with Scripture, therefore the Scripture does not support such doctrines.

It is also known that Purgatory was invented by the Roman Church as a means of wielding influence over the masses. It later became a means of raising funds to build the Vatican. This is the practice that Luther was so vehemently opposed to.

Colabomb

29th June 2006, 02:26 PM

Dear Exploding Soda Man;) ,

As our Barefoot Buddy stated above, the Apochrypha is not on par with Scripture, therefore the Scripture does not support such doctrines.

It is also known that Purgatory was invented by the Roman Church as a means of wielding influence over the masses. It later became a means of raising funds to build the Vatican. This is the practice that Luther was so vehemently opposed to.
I personally do not believe in purgatory, and like Byzantine said, the books do not lead to the conclusion necessarily.

But the assumption is made that just because these books supposedly support the doctrine of purgatory, that that in itself makes them unscriptural. I was pointing out that whatever is in Scripture is true, therefore if the Apocrypha is Scripture, which I believe it is, we have to look at it more objectively.

Colabomb

29th June 2006, 02:34 PM

C.F.W. Walther

29th June 2006, 02:55 PM

I personally do not believe in purgatory, and like Byzantine said, the books do not lead to the conclusion necessarily.

But the assumption is made that just because these books supposedly support the doctrine of purgatory, that that in itself makes them unscriptural. I was pointing out that whatever is in Scripture is true, therefore if the Apocrypha is Scripture, which I believe it is, we have to look at it more objectively.

Your beliefs are your beliefs and our beliefs are ours. We don't subscribe to the opened end canonicty; just the 66 books and since the apocrypha is outside that then it isn't consider scripture, Just a good read. Luther was supportive of that.

Even on the canons he pesonaly didn't feel that Hebrews, James, Revelation and I think Jude were not totally subscriptive to the others books he still supported the infallibility of the divine revelation given in the Scriptures within the confines of the canon.

:scratch:

Colabomb

29th June 2006, 03:16 PM

ByzantineDixie

29th June 2006, 04:49 PM

Ed, as I promised earlier on prayers for the dead...

The Orthodox Church, from biblical times, has offered prayers for the dead. They are offered on the basis of the fact that the Church is one, but found both on earth (the Church Militant) and in heaven (the Church Triumphant). Since as members of the Church we are obligated to pray for each other, there is no reason why we may not pray for the dead. However, it is another issue as to the actual consequences of our prayers for the dead. For you see, the Church also teaches that all which we do for salvation must be done in this life. According to church teaching there is no movement from damnation to salvation in the life to come, nor is there a continuation of spiritual development.
Then what effect can our prayers have for the dead? We have only the response that somehow they help providing comfort and assistance. We do not know precisely the nature of that assistance, but we trust the mercy of God, that He will hear our prayer for our beloved dead. But this is not so unusual. Even as we pray for things in this life, we never know in advance just what kind of answers our prayers will receive. Our prayers do not produce predictably automatic results. It is the same with our prayers for the dead. Needless to say, our prayers for the dead also have an impact on us; they remind us of those who have gone on; we come into communion with the Church Triumphant; and, not insignificantly, we are reminded of our own eventual death and our responsibility to prepare for it and to be ready for it.
- Stanley S. Harakas
taken from, The Orthodox Church:
455 Questions and Answers

LutherNut

29th June 2006, 04:56 PM

According to church teaching there is no movement from damnation to salvation in the life to come, nor is there a continuation of spiritual development.

This is precisely why prayers for the dead are moot. To pray for the dead is to assume that such prayer will benefit them. It is clear by the Scriptures that it does not for it cannot.

We give thanks to God for the dead, for the example of their faith, but we do not, nor should we, pray for the dead, no more than we should pray to the dead.

Qoheleth

29th June 2006, 09:40 PM

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ByzantineDixie again.

I tried...

Q

C.F.W. Walther

30th June 2006, 02:07 AM

We have only the response that somehow they help providing comfort and assistance

Why would the dead need comfort and assistance if they are triumphant? Do you ascribe to purgatory as in the Apocrypha? Just curious.

:scratch:

LilLamb219

30th June 2006, 08:11 AM

For you see, the Church also teaches that all which we do for salvation must be done in this life.

There's another problem there....you see, "we" don't do anything for our salvation as our triune God handles that all on his own; 100%.

DaRev

30th June 2006, 09:08 AM

I personally do not believe in purgatory, and like Byzantine said, the books do not lead to the conclusion necessarily.

But the assumption is made that just because these books supposedly support the doctrine of purgatory, that that in itself makes them unscriptural. I was pointing out that whatever is in Scripture is true, therefore if the Apocrypha is Scripture, which I believe it is, we have to look at it more objectively.

I simply stated that the RCC uses the apochrypha as their source for the doctrine of Purgatory. I never said that becasue they support Purgatory that they are unScriptural. They are unScriptural because they are not in line with much of what the canonical books teach and say, Purgatory being only an example.

There is nothing in them that affects our salvation anyway, so the whole argument is moot.

(LOL on the name thing, are you actually a Minister?)

;)

Yes, I am an LCMS pastor.

DaRev

30th June 2006, 09:09 AM

There's another problem there....you see, "we" don't do anything for our salvation as our triune God handles that all on his own; 100%.

...which proves that the Orthodox are heterodox...

;)

Qoheleth

30th June 2006, 02:09 PM

There's another problem there....you see, "we" don't do anything for our salvation as our triune God handles that all on his own; 100%.

We actively participate in it, i.e. cooperate, though we merit nor earn a thing. We are not stones that are moved about from place to place

Q

Qoheleth

30th June 2006, 02:51 PM

...which proves that the Orthodox are heterodox...

This must mean that the Church was heterodox from the beginning.

No, of course not

The Orthodox do not in anyway believe that they can save themselves or merit or earn salvation. God's grace and mercy are what saves man, and this is manifested by Christ's birth, baptism, transfiguration, suffering, death and resurrection.

Q

LilLamb219

30th June 2006, 03:55 PM

We actively participate in it, i.e. cooperate, though we merit nor earn a thing. We are not stones that are moved about from place to place

God can make a Church out of stones, so I'd be careful what I say if I were you ;)

We do not cooperate in our salvation. Are you confusing justification with sanctification?

ByzantineDixie

30th June 2006, 04:32 PM

This is precisely why prayers for the dead are moot. To pray for the dead is to assume that such prayer will benefit them. It is clear by the Scriptures that it does not for it cannot.

It sounds here like you are saying the only beneficial prayer is when our prayers are answered in the way that we perceive benefit. That's not what you mean, is it? There is benefit in standing in the presence of God in prayer whether or not He chooses to answer our prayers in accordance with our will, no?

Do you ascribe to purgatory as in the Apocrypha? Just curious.

As I mentioned earlier, there is no doctrine of purgatory in the Orthodox Church.

There's another problem there....you see, "we" don't do anything for our salvation as our triune God handles that all on his own; 100%.

There is no problem. The Orthodox are neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian heretics. Salvation comes from Christ. All we do is done by grace--but we can choose to cooperate with that grace or not. As Q correctly pointed out, the concept of merit is foreign to Orthodoxy.

If anyone is interested in learning more...the Orthodox Lutheran Dialogue (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Orthodox-Lutheran_Dialogue/) is a great place to learn and separate the slogans from the realities of both Lutheranism and Orthodoxy.

LilLamb219

30th June 2006, 04:49 PM

As Q correctly pointed out, the concept of merit is foreign to Orthodoxy.

That's because they turn their eyes from the realization of what is happening in actuality...so of course to be in denial makes it seem foreign.

Qoheleth

30th June 2006, 05:36 PM

God can make a Church out of stones, so I'd be careful what I say if I were you

Now why would God do a thing like that? Better yet, why doesnt He since He does not need nor want nor care for our participation in anyway as concerns our salvation.

We do not cooperate in our salvation. Are you confusing justification with sanctification?

So one can disregard their sanctification, throw it off, not participate together with God and His work in us, and still expect to be "saved"...correct?

Q

Qoheleth

30th June 2006, 05:38 PM

That's because they turn their eyes from the realization of what is happening in actuality...so of course to be in denial makes it seem foreign.

Im not altogether sure what youre trying to say here. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

Q

LilLamb219

30th June 2006, 05:48 PM

Im not altogether sure what youre trying to say here. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

I'm not sure either LOL Let's ignore it!

Qoheleth

30th June 2006, 05:52 PM

I'm not sure either LOL Let's ignore it!

LOL... ok, fair enough

Q

Edial

30th June 2006, 06:01 PM

to ByzantineDixie ...Ed, as I promised earlier on prayers for the dead...

The Orthodox Church, from biblical times, has offered prayers for the dead. They are offered on the basis of the fact that the Church is one, but found both on earth (the Church Militant) and in heaven (the Church Triumphant). Since as members of the Church we are obligated to pray for each other, there is no reason why we may not pray for the dead. However, it is another issue as to the actual consequences of our prayers for the dead. For you see, the Church also teaches that all which we do for salvation must be done in this life. According to church teaching there is no movement from damnation to salvation in the life to come, nor is there a continuation of spiritual development.
Then what effect can our prayers have for the dead? We have only the response that somehow they help providing comfort and assistance. We do not know precisely the nature of that assistance, but we trust the mercy of God, that He will hear our prayer for our beloved dead. But this is not so unusual. Even as we pray for things in this life, we never know in advance just what kind of answers our prayers will receive. Our prayers do not produce predictably automatic results. It is the same with our prayers for the dead. Needless to say, our prayers for the dead also have an impact on us; they remind us of those who have gone on; we come into communion with the Church Triumphant; and, not insignificantly, we are reminded of our own eventual death and our responsibility to prepare for it and to be ready for it.
- Stanley S. Harakas
taken from, The Orthodox Church:

455 Questions and Answers

I understand that.

My objection to the prayers for the dead is indeed addessed in this quote.

Then what effect can our prayers have for the dead? We have only the response that somehow they help providing comfort and assistance.

Although you say that you do not believe in Purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox Church appears to believe that the dead of the Church are not with Christ after death, since they need additional help in comfort and assistance.

(If anyone needs that is us).:)

However, if they are not with Christ and not satisfied, they do indeed need such prayers.

Now, if they are not with Christ while dead, they were not IN Christ while alive.

Prayers for the dead are a testimony that the dead are not with Christ.

And since the teaching of such a prayer is prevalent in the very doctrine of the EO, EO testifies that it's members do not go TO Christ after death.

This teaching is unscriptural in the context of salvation after death.

But if, hypothetically speaking, the members of the EO Church are indeed unsaved, then this teaching is also not efficatious, since the prayers of the unsaved for other unsaved are in vain.

(You understand that I am not saying that EO members are unsaved).

What I am saying is that a doctrine of praying for the dead for their comfort, betrays the authority of the EO Church, because it is unscriptural (although Apochryphal), self-condemning and does not assure the satisfying presence of the Lord after death.

Thanks,
Ed

C.F.W. Walther

30th June 2006, 06:09 PM

Why would the dead need comfort and assistance if they are triumphant? Do you ascribe to purgatory as in the Apocrypha? Just curious.

:scratch:

BD could you please answer the first part of my previous question?..........thanks.

Qoheleth

30th June 2006, 07:30 PM

This teaching is unscriptural in the context of salvation after death.

Hmmm....

"We know that the ancients spoke of prayer for the dead. We do not forbid this... (Apology XXIV, 93-94, 96 (Tappert)

And here is what Luther says...

“As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice." (AE 37: 369).

Q

Edial

30th June 2006, 09:36 PM

Hmmm....

"We know that the ancients spoke of prayer for the dead. We do not forbid this... (Apology XXIV, 93-94, 96 (Tappert)

And here is what Luther says...

“As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice." (AE 37: 369).

Q
That topic is irrelevant to my post.

Q, quote context. :)

Prayer for the dead to get comfort for the dead is a proclamation of the fact that the dead is not with Christ.

If the dead is in Hades, such prayer can be appropriate, if the one that prays is a believer.

The point is that the official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches dictates such prayers as a widely implemented practice.

To couple it with a day-to-day fact that an average Roman Catholic and an average Eastern Orthodox have to idea where they will wind up (actually RC members are pretty certain they'll wind up in the Purgatory), makes a prayer for the dead a doctrine that is inappropriate for believers, unless of course they believe that the dead is in the Hades.

And since the prayer for the dead is commonly advertised and encouraged, RC and EO leadership believes that their members will most probably wind up in these places.

The official and wide spread encouragement of such a doctrine, indeed proves that they practice what they believe.

Thanks,
Ed

Qoheleth

30th June 2006, 10:29 PM

The point is that the official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches dictates such prayers as a widely implemented practice.

Quote this practice for me as being necessary and a "dictate" of the Orthodox church.

In anycase, the practice is an acceptable Lutheran practice .

So the rest is irrelevant.

Q

ByzantineDixie

1st July 2006, 07:34 AM

BD could you please answer the first part of my previous question?..........thanks.
I am sorry for not having answered earlier. As we discussed in the Bierhaus…I am traveling right now and I wanted to consult some of my references before I posted my response. The subject of prayer for the dead touches many Orthodox understandings; prayer, the communion of Saints, judgment, etc. My desire is to keep the answer succinct without pulling the discussion too far in any of these directions.

But I won’t be home until late tonight so perhaps I can answer like this. Imagine standing before the Judgment Seat…facing the Glory of God; His Purity, His Holiness, His Perfection. Coming face to face—my imperfection before His Glory. The intense regret of not having lived as He asked me to live, the times I failed in loving my neighbor, the times I failed to honor my parents, the times I failed to seek Him first in all things. I can only imagine how those failings will look in contrast to His Holiness. I will no doubt be full of unimaginable remorse and regret that I had not walked with the Holy Spirit instead of warring with Him.

We pray that the Lord will have mercy on the dead…that when this moment comes, the dead are comforted…I imagine not unlike the hearing of absolution after confession.

There are other reasons we pray for the dead, too, and the original quote addressed some of these.

DaRev

1st July 2006, 11:59 AM

If the dead is in Hades, such prayer can be appropriate, if the one that prays is a believer.

How is that appropriate?
The soul in hell/Hades is lost eternally, it cannot be saved. Praying for one bound for hell/Hades is moot.(Luke 16:23-26)

Qoheleth

1st July 2006, 12:04 PM

Praying for one bound for hell/Hades is moot.(Luke 16:23-26)

Odd statement...

How is that any of us could know who is bound for hell or not?

The soul in hell/Hades is lost eternally, it cannot be saved.

If it were possible for one to be released from hell, IF, would you pray for this to happen. In fact would you pray that God would empty hell? Which is to say, save all souls.

Q

DaRev

1st July 2006, 12:12 PM

Odd statement...

How is that any of us could know who is bound for hell or not?

We don't. At death, either one is bound for heaven in which case our prayers are not needed, or they are bound for hell in which case our prayers are useless.

If it were possible for one to be released from hell, IF, would you pray for this to happen. In fact would you pray that God would empty hell? Which is to say, save all souls.

"IF"? Yes. But we know that's not the case, so it is moot.

Qoheleth

1st July 2006, 12:18 PM

We don't. At death, either one is bound for heaven in which case our prayers are not needed, or they are bound for hell in which case our prayers are useless.

So what do you make of this below

"We know that the ancients spoke of prayer for the dead. We do not forbid this... (Apology XXIV, 93-94, 96 (Tappert)

Was Luther wrong in saying what he does here from all we know of Luthers theology. Consider the implications of his statement.

“As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice." (AE 37: 369).

Q

DaRev

1st July 2006, 12:24 PM

So what do you make of this below

"We know that the ancients spoke of prayer for the dead. We do not forbid this... (Apology XXIV, 93-94, 96 (Tappert)

Context. If you read back to paragraph 93, it speaks of a "thanksgiving." There is nothing wrong with giving thanks for those who have departed. It is a prayer of thanksgiving that they do not forbid.

Was Luther wrong in saying what he does here from all we know of Luthers theology. Consider the implications of his statement.

“As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice." (AE 37: 369).

Luther was not infallible.

Edial

1st July 2006, 12:46 PM

How is that appropriate?
The soul in hell/Hades is lost eternally, it cannot be saved. Praying for one bound for hell/Hades is moot.(Luke 16:23-26)
It can be appropriate because Gehenna (or a Burning Lake) is a place where one cannot be saved from.

Immediate afterlife (which also Sheol in OT) does not present that salvation is not possible unto heaven for the ones that died without rejecting Christ.

LK 16:22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell (Hades not Gehenna), where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
LK 16:25 "But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

In this text of Hades, the great chasm is between Abraham's Bosom and Hades.

Abraham's Bosom is not heaven.
Heaven was not yet opened for the masses.

Many commentators think that it could be a compartment of the Hades itself.
But regardless, it is not heaven.

So the chasm in v.26 is not between the Hades and heaven.

Besides, there is substatial Scriptural evidence that God can and does save from Hades(NT)/Sheol(OT) unto heaven.

So, one cannot say that a prayer of comfort for the dead in the Hades is inappropriate. Scripturally speaking, I cannot.

What I can say is that prayers of the alive cannot save one from Hades.
This I know.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

1st July 2006, 12:54 PM

We don't. At death, either one is bound for heaven in which case our prayers are not needed, or they are bound for hell in which case our prayers are useless.

"IF"? Yes. But we know that's not the case, so it is moot.
You have no Scriptural way of knowing that the ones from Hades (not Gehenna) cannot be saved by God unless they knowingly and willfully rejected Christ here on earth.

Thanks,
Ed

Qoheleth

1st July 2006, 02:07 PM

Context. If you read back to paragraph 93, it speaks of a "thanksgiving." There is nothing wrong with giving thanks for those who have departed. It is a prayer of thanksgiving that they do not forbid.

I disagree. The context is Offerings (prayers for and supplications) made on behalf of and for the dead. It is not simply a thankyou for the departed having been with us.

Luther was not infallible.

Does not answer the question. Do you believe that Luther was wrong in this regard?

Q

Edial

1st July 2006, 03:22 PM

...

Luther was not infallible.
This is a strong statement, yet a correct one.
However, it carries an uncomfortable suggestion that you are infallible in this view.

Luther was a student of Scriptures to a degree that he actually interpreted it into another language.

This puts him on another level of authority.
Any linguist would know the monumental undertasking of this.

He was also a humble man (as far as the attitude towards the Scriptures goes) and knew that if the Scriptures are silent so should he be.

Do you believe you have Scriptures to support you opposing view?

Thanks,
Ed

JVAC

4th July 2006, 01:32 PM

You say Esther was motivated by nothing but selfish interests. Clement says, "Esther also, being perfect in faith..." St. Athanasius sais, "And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety."

Even the Bible gives no such hint that selfishness was Esther's primary motivation, "Then Esther spoke to Hathach, and gave him a command for Mordecai: 'All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that any man or woman who goes into the inner court to the king, who has not been called, he has but one law: put all to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter, that he may live. Yet I myself have not been called to go in to the king these thirty days.'"

What good could she do her people if she were dead? Was there no other way she could help her people?

"O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me..."

"And Mordecai told them to answer Esther: “Do not think in your heart that you will escape in the king’s palace any more than all the other Jews. For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?'"

No, this is your purpose.

"Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai: 'Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!'"

"My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me."

"...nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

Because of the Eighth Commandment, I would rather speak well of Esther, and put the best construction on everything I read of her that isn't explicitly condemning. You see only negativity in Esther, I think you need to read it with new eyes.

Esther was approved by Clement, The Council of Rome, Hippo, CarthageIII, Augustine, Innocent I, etc. The book is included in not only Prostetant Bibles, but Catholic, Greek, Coptic, Slavonic, etc., even while other books are disputed among the fifferent canons... The clear (albiet not unanymous) testimony of the church catholic speaks to include Esther. In addition, much like the Apocrypha, Esther was included in the Septuagint, which was the Bible most commonly in use when Paul wrote "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

I argue for Esther's inclusion, not authoratatively, not as a matter of dogma, not as an expert, but as a plea to a fellow catholic, orthodox, confessional, true Lutheran brother... Too much has been ripped off and torn down and stripped away by the Reformed and Baptist influence, and some of those who even falsly claim to be Lutheran. When Luther questioned the apocrypha and antilegomena, he stated his opinions, but he never tried to "get rid" of any of the canon as it was handed down (see your OP ref to Esther and Ruth).

While blessed Athanasius said that, he still did not give it canonical status. In fact the catholic Church did not really posses this book catholicly until after the fourth century, if even then. Thus if the book was not in catholic use throughout time there is basis to not accept it, with respect to catholicity.

With respect to content, I see Esther (note the personal pronoun, thus I dare not say this is "What the Church believes") as being a selfish goon. She looks out for herself, and then Mordecai threatens her, saying, "If you don't help, we will get help, and when we do, you and yours are doomed". She decides to side with Mordecai. There is no tone of religious conviction, save fasting, yet on the contrary, there is a high degree of racism. In fact the whole book centers on racism. Personally I don't see much from this book. Yet this is a personal conviction, I merely lay it before the Church.

You make a good point about not taking it out, with respect to Luther. However, I still don't see it's relevance. Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

-James

JVAC

4th July 2006, 01:51 PM

Holy Spirit authored the Scriptures.
The writers penned it.

These were written in order to correct the Church, keep it intact and in place and from going away from the Scriptures.

2TI 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Church has no authority over the Scriptures.
Even the writers of the Scriptures yjemselves gave up their authority over that what they wrote and gave it to Holy Spirit.

The reason Christianity exists is not because of other books, but because of Jesus.

Other books is not the Judaic canon of the times.

That same canon is kept by today's Judaics.
Although they would love to be different from the Christians in that, they cannot. They still have the same books that the OT consists of.

What they read then, they read now.

And Jesus DID authorized the OT by his words.
See my later posts here for more itemized description.

Jesus accepted the Jewish canon (OT) as the word of God.
NT also states that ALL Scriptures are inspired.
If one starts cross-referencing one would see that Peter for example called Paul's writings as Scriptures, and so forth.

2PE 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

You have no idea what Jude thought.
Enoch was referenced as reading OUTSIDE of Scriptures.

We have other readings also.

When we put these at par with the Scriptures, we make the uninspired text inspired.
And with the same motion we make the inspired text uninspired.

So did Christ.
They were paraphrasing. And their paraphrases are Scriptures and are inspired.

Jesus is the essense.
Scriptures describe him.
Without them the Church would not understand him.

Church does not have a special revelation.
They have Scriptures, the same ones that we have.

Once again, Scriptures are there to keep the Church from going outside of them.

The Church has no knowledge outside of Scriptures.

Your quote here already disqualifies the Scriptural authority.

Church has no authority by itself outside of Scriptures, because if not for the Scriptures they would be "unemployed mystics" that chase widows for their houses.

The Scriptures give them authority.

They cannot give authority to the Scriptures, since these Scriptures were written so to keep an eye on them.

And these are based on Scriptures, since Jesus made his theology and scholarship on Scriptures.

MT 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

And "Yes", we do things because Jesus did them.

We follow him.

JN 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

And the Scriptures must keep the Church from going outside of the Scriptures.

I know what I read.

The Maccabees story of a widow watching her sons die while being tortured one at a time and "keeping her faith" is a salvation by suffering.

Peter's denial of Christ and his salvation presents salvation by grace through faith.

OT Apocrypha is from the Jews, not the Church Fathers.

The Jews and the Christ ignored them as Scriptures.

NY Times is also popular.

No problem.

Thanks, :)
Ed

I think traditionally the voice is clear, the Scriptures were canonized as a liturgical voice. St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Athanasius of Alexandria point out that the "Scriptures are sufficient for our instruction". Yet what is scripture is defined by the Church catholic. They didn't recieve a canon list but rather gave a canon list. The lists varied all over the church in the first four hundred years, only after that did they begin to stabalize. This was consiliar decision, guided by the Holy Ghost, (The patristics state).

What books go in and what books go out? The Church decides this upon what they teach. Each book is weighed against the Faith of the Church, as St Ignatius of Antioch points out. The Life, Death, and Ressurection of Jesus is the center of everything and not the Scriptures. They were ordained by the Church as a good witness. The deposit of the Holy catholic and Apostolic Faith, was not placed in books but in people and it is the people that transmit this faith, so says St. John Chyrsostom.

The argument of St Paul in the letter to Timothy, only talks about the Old Testament Scriptures. Thus if we are literalists, the NT is not Scripture by decree of St Paul. St Paul and all the writers of Epistle, didn't intend for their writings to be Scripture, no the Church intended it through time.

Lastly, you continue to reasert that you know the exact canon Jesus "held". You have no tangible proof, nor does your idea line up with contextual evidence. If one takes your stance, they must limit themselves to only the Books Jesus used, otherwise you might be using books he didn't think were "scriptural". As for me, I would rather trust the catholic opinion of the OT rather than rabinical opinion on the HB.

-James

JVAC

4th July 2006, 02:00 PM

Your beliefs are your beliefs and our beliefs are ours. We don't subscribe to the opened end canonicty; just the 66 books and since the apocrypha is outside that then it isn't consider scripture, Just a good read. Luther was supportive of that.

Even on the canons he pesonaly didn't feel that Hebrews, James, Revelation and I think Jude were not totally subscriptive to the others books he still supported the infallibility of the divine revelation given in the Scriptures within the confines of the canon.

This is precisely the point at issue: Lutherans confessionaly have an open canon. Our canon is not limited by the BoC, nor by any theologian. Rather, our theologians take a possitive thesis approach: They say, "At least hold fast to the homolegoumena, the rest is extra credit".

In Lutheran theology, primacy is given to the Cross and all the other themes and teachings of Scripture plays second fiddle. That doesn't mean we get rid of them, and it doesn't mean we fail to teach them, all it means is that everything we teach is harmonized into both Law and Gospel. With that thought, the Apocraphyl books are rightly taught. Tobit and Maccabees add an important voice to our diverse canon.

Lastly, if you point the "James" thing out in Luther's bible, you must also point out the "apocrapha" which shares the same status of James and co. The fact of the matter is, Luther's Hermeneutic centered on the anunciation of Jesus and His cross, and that is all that really concerned him. He ignored many things, because the cross is the most important.

Technically Luther is in accordance with the catholic Church as well, for catholically and liturgically, the Gospels are the most important part of Scripture.

-James

JVAC

4th July 2006, 02:12 PM

CLARIFICATION OF TERMS:

Apocrypha - the hidden books, this refers to the sense that their meaning was hard for the average joe to comprehend. Apocrypha does not mean "fake, dubious, etc." Apocrypha is not a pejoritive word and should not be used as such.

Deuterocanon - A word that refers to the council of Trent, literally "the second canon". Refers only to those books accepted in the council by RCC.

Pseudopigraphical - "Fake books" works that were used but were written under a fake name.

(Proper use of terms help convey proper meanings of authors, a friendly help to make posts have clearer meanings.)

-James

Music4Hym777

4th July 2006, 04:42 PM

Jim47

4th July 2006, 06:56 PM

JVAC
With respect to content, I see Esther (note the personal pronoun, thus I dare not say this is "What the Church believes") as being a selfish goon. She looks out for herself, and then Mordecai threatens her, saying, "If you don't help, we will get help, and when we do, you and yours are doomed". She decides to side with Mordecai. There is no tone of religious conviction, save fasting, yet on the contrary, there is a high degree of racism. In fact the whole book centers on racism. Personally I don't see much from this book. Yet this is a personal conviction, I merely lay it before the Church.

-James

Before I offer my thoughts here I would just like to say that it is really nice to have you back with us. I'm sure your time is limited with all the studies you do.

Now I would just like to offer this in defence of Esther. You came down on her rather hard don't you think? Did you forget that she too was a sinner, just as was King David and the other patriarchs? Because God loves us sinners, He grants us His grace and His Holy Spirit to change our hearts, just as Esther did.

Myself I think Esther is a very important book of the bible. There is nothing in it that contradicts other scripture, and is itself a treasure of history and victory over evil.

JVAC

5th July 2006, 12:43 AM

Before I offer my thoughts here I would just like to say that it is really nice to have you back with us. I'm sure your time is limited with all the studies you do.

Now I would just like to offer this in defence of Esther. You came down on her rather hard don't you think? Did you forget that she too was a sinner, just as was King David and the other patriarchs? Because God loves us sinners, He grants us His grace and His Holy Spirit to change our hearts, just as Esther did.

Myself I think Esther is a very important book of the bible. There is nothing in it that contradicts other scripture, and is itself a treasure of history and victory evil.
Thanks for your thoughts Jim and it is nice to be back talking theology with all of you stimulating theologians!

I do think I have come down hard on Esther, but I don't think it is unmerited. While David was a grevious sinner, his story focused on God as well. Here in Esther we don't have a God-centered view, instead we have a race-centered view. Everything focuses on "we are the best people". The resolution is the Jewish race, instead of being slaughtered, slaughters.

Beyond that the hero of the story is a city girl who gives herself to the foreign king. She doesn't wish to protect anyone except herself until threatened by her own people. Then she and her people show no mercy.

I am not saying that there is no sin in other stories, but what I am saying is this myth does not describe God's relationship with Israel, but Israel's self perception. It is not difficult to see why this book doesn't find itself into many theologies ancient and modern.

-James

DaRev

6th July 2006, 10:04 AM

It can be appropriate because Gehenna (or a Burning Lake) is a place where one cannot be saved from.

Immediate afterlife (which also Sheol in OT) does not present that salvation is not possible unto heaven for the ones that died without rejecting Christ.

LK 16:22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell (Hades not Gehenna), where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
LK 16:25 "But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

In this text of Hades, the great chasm is between Abraham's Bosom and Hades.

Abraham's Bosom is not heaven.
Heaven was not yet opened for the masses.

Many commentators think that it could be a compartment of the Hades itself.
But regardless, it is not heaven.

So the chasm in v.26 is not between the Hades and heaven.

Besides, there is substatial Scriptural evidence that God can and does save from Hades(NT)/Sheol(OT) unto heaven.

So, one cannot say that a prayer of comfort for the dead in the Hades is inappropriate. Scripturally speaking, I cannot.

What I can say is that prayers of the alive cannot save one from Hades.
This I know.

Thanks,
Ed

First, in the NT, Hades (place) and Gehenna (descriptor) are synonomous. Sheol is the OT Hebrew word for "grave."

Second, I doubt very highly that angels would have carried anyone to hell. (Luke 16:22)

The parable also makes a differentiation between where Lazarus was (at Abraham's bosom, also known as "Paradise" where the penitent thief was promised to be with Jesus on the day of the crucifixion) and the rich man (in Hades). They are not in the same place (read Luke 16:22-23). You also need to understand the Jewish understanding which was the basis for Jesus' parable and the descriptions that he used therein. Certainly, Abraham would not have gone to hell (Hades/Gehenna/whatever), therefore the place of Lazarus was not in Hades, either.

The point of the parable is that the rich man, once he died and was in his eternal place, could not then be "saved" or move from his place to the other. This is the teaching that Jesus is making here. Our salvation and our eternal destination is determined before temporal death.

You certainly have an interesting concept of things. I don't agree with much of what you say, but it is nevertheless interesting. :scratch:

DaRev

Edial

8th July 2006, 07:03 PM

First, in the NT, Hades (place) and Gehenna (descriptor) are synonomous.
Gehenna is synonymous with the Burning Lake.
Hades and Gehenna are certainly two different places.

Sheol is the OT Hebrew word for "grave."
Kevar is grave.

Sheol is the Realm of the Departed Dead.

Second, I doubt very highly that angels would have carried anyone to hell. (Luke 16:22).
You are working on a presupposition.

Angels carried him to Hades.

Abraham's Bosom is also a part of (arguably) Hades.

The parable also makes a differentiation between where Lazarus was (at Abraham's bosom, also known as "Paradise" where the penitent thief was promised to be with Jesus on the day of the crucifixion) and the rich man (in Hades). They are not in the same place (read Luke 16:22-23).
I do not know whether they are at the same place or not.
One was in Hades, another in Abraham's Bosom.

All in the OT were going to the place of their fathers, and that was not grave, but a specific place in the afterlife.

At any case, Abraham's Bosom was not heaven, since heaven was closed to the masses until the Christ.

You also need to understand the Jewish understanding which was the basis for Jesus' parable and the descriptions that he used therein.
Certainly, Abraham would not have gone to hell (Hades/Gehenna/whatever), therefore the place of Lazarus was not in Hades, either.
In Hebraic literature, Hades had 2 compartments: one for the righteous dead another for the not righteous dead.

Heaven was generally closed for people at that time.

Abraham went someplace that was outside of heaven and Lazarus and the Rich Man could see each other.

The point of the parable is that the rich man, once he died and was in his eternal place, could not then be "saved" or move from his place to the other. This is the teaching that Jesus is making here.
One of the teachings is that the Hades is a place which plays a role of a great equalizer.
LK 16:25 "But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.

One could not go from one place into another, since these two places played a unique and specific roles of justice.

Yet salvation unto heaven is by grace through faith.

Rich man wanted his brothers to see a miracle and "repent" (or be scared) off their egocentrical, selfcentered lifestyles.

Repentance is when one understands the love of God and believes that one is wrong and turns away from his lifestyle in disgust.

When the Kingdom of God comes, it is the Purity that comes, and with that love.

Our salvation and our eternal destination is determined before temporal death.
It is determined by God before the creation of all.

And that determination is only visible to us in this life when one receives Christ plainly or rejects him plainly.

Otherwise, all things go on until the Great White Throne Judgement, that is in the future.

You certainly have an interesting concept of things. I don't agree with much of what you say, but it is nevertheless interesting. :scratch:

DaRev
The Scriptures changed several major things that I learned as a new believer.

The reason they changed them was not because certain verses "outnumbered" others, but because there are no verses on one side and there are others on another.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

8th July 2006, 07:21 PM

I think traditionally the voice is clear, the Scriptures were canonized as a liturgical voice. St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Athanasius of Alexandria point out that the "Scriptures are sufficient for our instruction". Yet what is scripture is defined by the Church catholic. They didn't recieve a canon list but rather gave a canon list. The lists varied all over the church in the first four hundred years, only after that did they begin to stabalize. This was consiliar decision, guided by the Holy Ghost, (The patristics state).

What books go in and what books go out? The Church decides this upon what they teach. Each book is weighed against the Faith of the Church, as St Ignatius of Antioch points out. The Life, Death, and Ressurection of Jesus is the center of everything and not the Scriptures. They were ordained by the Church as a good witness. The deposit of the Holy catholic and Apostolic Faith, was not placed in books but in people and it is the people that transmit this faith, so says St. John Chyrsostom.

The argument of St Paul in the letter to Timothy, only talks about the Old Testament Scriptures. Thus if we are literalists, the NT is not Scripture by decree of St Paul. St Paul and all the writers of Epistle, didn't intend for their writings to be Scripture, no the Church intended it through time.

Lastly, you continue to reasert that you know the exact canon Jesus "held". You have no tangible proof, nor does your idea line up with contextual evidence. If one takes your stance, they must limit themselves to only the Books Jesus used, otherwise you might be using books he didn't think were "scriptural". As for me, I would rather trust the catholic opinion of the OT rather than rabinical opinion on the HB.

-James
I think the foundation of your argument is defined in this paragraph.

The argument of St Paul in the letter to Timothy, only talks about the Old Testament Scriptures. Thus if we are literalists, the NT is not Scripture by decree of St Paul. St Paul and all the writers of Epistle, didn't intend for their writings to be Scripture, no the Church intended it through time.

According to St.Peter, NT (at least the letters of St.Paul) are Scriptures.

2PE 3:15 Bear in mind t