I recall a few years ago stumbling upon a book that was intended to describe the process and thought process, etc about which books were ultimately added to the New Testament in the Bible. Google searches were not helpful. Any assistance here?
Book about how New Testament books were selected
3,138 Views |
58 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Zobel
2nd Temple Judaism and Backgrounds to the New Testamenttlh3842 said:
I recall a few years ago stumbling upon a book that was intended to describe the process and thought process, etc about which books were ultimately added to the New Testament in the Bible. Google searches were not helpful. Any assistance here?
Craig Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature
E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (5 volume set)
O. Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity
O. Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries
J. Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament
J. Fitzmyer, The Semitic Background of the New Testament (Biblical Resource Series)
Becking (ed), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition (Revised 2nd) [Hardcover]
Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students (Christian Classics Bible Studies)
Evans (ed), Dictionary of New Testament Background (The IVP Bible Dictionary Series)
Louis Feldman, James Kugel, Lawrence Schiffman (eds,), Outside the Bible, 3-volume set: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (expensive)
Michael Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum)
Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran
Charlesworth (ed), Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Anchor Bible Reference Library)
Vanderkam (ed), The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity
Abegg (ed), The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English
Garcia-Martinez (ed), The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English
Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, rev. ed
Magness (ed), The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature)
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
James C. VanderKam, "1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature," in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity; ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 33101
James C. Vanderkam and George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Fortress Press, 2012)
This is the most recent, textually up-to-date, scholarly translation of 1 Enoch. It is taken from the scholarly commentary series below.
George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, v.1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36, 81-108 (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible)
George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch v. 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82 (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible)
Charlesworth (ed), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ( 2 Volume set)
Charles (ed), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament: Apocrypha
Charles (ed), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Volume Two
D. de Silva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Whoa whoa whoa.
Do you have a 5 minute youtube video instead?
Do you have a 5 minute youtube video instead?
Watching Protestants grapple with "How did we get the Bible?" is like watching a young earth creationist wrestle with finding dinosaur bones.
Ok here is a dumbed down version for you. Guy with dunce hat says so.one MEEN Ag said:
Whoa whoa whoa.
Do you have a 5 minute youtube video instead?
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures. An exegetical and Historical Study by R. Laird Harris
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Watching Protestants grapple with "How did we get the Bible?" is like watching a young earth creationist wrestle with finding dinosaur bones.
Oh thats right, its just as simple as God says here's the Bible. My bad for having questions and wanting to have answers when I try to discuss God and Jesus with friends that believe. Most of them because they grew up with families that just said here's the Bible and believe or goto hell, and yet were the biggest hypocrits.
Responses like this are why more and more people are leaving the church.
Interesting conversation, about an hour long if you have the time
Michael Kruger is a great scholar and has a good website/blog here:
Canon Fodder - Exploring the origins of the New Testament canon and other biblical and theological issues (michaeljkruger.com)
Unlike many scholars, he writes in a very understandable manner (although he may have to dumb it down a bit more for FTACo88 to understand.
)
Canon Fodder - Exploring the origins of the New Testament canon and other biblical and theological issues (michaeljkruger.com)
Unlike many scholars, he writes in a very understandable manner (although he may have to dumb it down a bit more for FTACo88 to understand.
)
From your second link:
That sounds precisely like the position that the evangelical protestant church takes towards the canonicity of the New Testament, particularly the first sentence. Yet you have consistently objected to similar statements in the past. What am I missing?Quote:
We can therefore see that the only person who chose the books which would be in our New Testament is the Holy Spirit. The New Testament canon can be seen to have developed in the life of the Holy Spirit in the church, the shared life of the Christian people, which the Orthodox Church calls Holy Tradition. It was neither the decision of certain authoritative men, nor the recognition, based on a series of criteria, of a group of learned men. The Fathers treated as authoritative those texts which they had received as authoritative, just as we do today.
What is the evangelical protestant church? Not sure that is a monolith that can be referred to singly at all.
But the difference is in the rest of the article. The first sentence is not the totality of the answer. The scriptures aren't the sole criteria of the faith, so the need to ratify them is different. At the root of the Orthodox view is holy Tradition which flows from the active guidance of the Spirit.
There's a big difference between the tautology of "our beliefs are divinely inspired because they're divinely inspired" and "our beliefs are divinely inspired and one way you can tell because of an unbroken chain of witnesses to those beliefs across cultures and continents."
But the difference is in the rest of the article. The first sentence is not the totality of the answer. The scriptures aren't the sole criteria of the faith, so the need to ratify them is different. At the root of the Orthodox view is holy Tradition which flows from the active guidance of the Spirit.
There's a big difference between the tautology of "our beliefs are divinely inspired because they're divinely inspired" and "our beliefs are divinely inspired and one way you can tell because of an unbroken chain of witnesses to those beliefs across cultures and continents."
Jabin said:
That sounds precisely like the position that the evangelical protestant church takes towards the canonicity of the New Testament, particularly the first sentence. Yet you have consistently objected to similar statements in the past. What am I missing?
I think what you are missing is that the evangelical rejects much of what the Apostolic Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, have held fast to and passed down from the first apostles throughout the ages. For example, in this case you limit the discussion of Scripture to the New Testament ONLY because you do not hold to the same Old Testament Scriptures of the Apostolic Church.
Huh? Are you a mind reader? Is that something that both Catholic and Orthodox church members can do, or is it only something you can do?Faithful Ag said:Jabin said:
That sounds precisely like the position that the evangelical protestant church takes towards the canonicity of the New Testament, particularly the first sentence. Yet you have consistently objected to similar statements in the past. What am I missing?
I think what you are missing is that the evangelical rejects much of what the Apostolic Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, have held fast to and passed down from the first apostles throughout the ages. For example, in this case you limit the discussion of Scripture to the New Testament ONLY because you do not hold to the same Old Testament Scriptures of the Apostolic Church.
Do to the wide variety of beliefs within protestants perhaps it would be more helpful for you to answer yes or no to the following questions to illustrate my point:
1. Do you accept or reject the "Apocryphal OT" books as Holy Scripture? (relevant to this thread)
Other questions…
2. Do you believe in Baptismal Regeneration?
3. Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist or that the bread and wine are merely symbolic? Do you use wine?
4. Do you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?
5. Do you believe in confession of your sins to God before another person (priest/pastor/someone) for forgiveness?
6. Do you believe in the Communion of Saints?
7. Do you believe in the intercession of the Saints?
eta:
8. Do you believe Mary is the mother of God?
9. Do you believe Mary was assumed into Heaven?
10. Do you believe in Apostolic Succession?
1. Do you accept or reject the "Apocryphal OT" books as Holy Scripture? (relevant to this thread)
Other questions…
2. Do you believe in Baptismal Regeneration?
3. Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist or that the bread and wine are merely symbolic? Do you use wine?
4. Do you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?
5. Do you believe in confession of your sins to God before another person (priest/pastor/someone) for forgiveness?
6. Do you believe in the Communion of Saints?
7. Do you believe in the intercession of the Saints?
eta:
8. Do you believe Mary is the mother of God?
9. Do you believe Mary was assumed into Heaven?
10. Do you believe in Apostolic Succession?
tlh3842 said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Watching Protestants grapple with "How did we get the Bible?" is like watching a young earth creationist wrestle with finding dinosaur bones.
Oh thats right, its just as simple as God says here's the Bible. My bad for having questions and wanting to have answers when I try to discuss God and Jesus with friends that believe. Most of them because they grew up with families that just said here's the Bible and believe or goto hell, and yet were the biggest hypocrits.
Responses like this are why more and more people are leaving the church.
tlh, I was just trying to bring some levity to the situation. All humor has an element of truth, after all. I apologize if I caused any harm. Not my intent.
PS - I very much believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, divine revelation, one, holy, catholic and apostolic church that is the mystical body of Christ on earth, and that unleavened wheat bread and wine, when consecrated by a priest who has been ordained by a Bishop of the OHCAC, becomes the real presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, the communion of saints, the resurrection of the body, and that the same person, Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, will some day judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end,
I've never understood the gotcha question about protestants and producing the bible.
Can I not trace the same early church fathers and councils up until the schism and then reformation? There's controversy surrounding the 80 or so books that make it into the various assemblies of the bible, but the main theme is still the same - the story of God told through the Jewish people and Jesus as the messiah. Clearly Jesus refers to Enoch, so that errs on the side of 'probably should be read' versus 4th maccabees could be probably be 'for reference only.'
The protestant churches have a communion problem, not a biblical canonization problem.
Ironically enough, the canonizing and then the mass production of the bible is the foundation of allowing so many schisms. When it was all separate scrolls, heavy on (good faith) interpretive guidance from hierarchical layers, it was super hard to separate the church from the bible. They were hand in hand. The cracks start forming and the printing press is the straw that breaks the camels back. Everyone and their bible can cut out the church (TM) and start their own church. At the beginning there were obvious ills addressed, but overtime without a huge inertial hierarchy there is a proliferation of every interpretation under the sun.
The story of the protestant church is replacing a heavy top down structure with a entrepreneurial bottom up structure. Avoiding some of the problems of a top down approach while adding problems of their own.
I personally wish there was more interfaith cooperation and communion, but once you go beyond a softball tournament, everyone organizes according to their tribe and the squabbles start.
Can I not trace the same early church fathers and councils up until the schism and then reformation? There's controversy surrounding the 80 or so books that make it into the various assemblies of the bible, but the main theme is still the same - the story of God told through the Jewish people and Jesus as the messiah. Clearly Jesus refers to Enoch, so that errs on the side of 'probably should be read' versus 4th maccabees could be probably be 'for reference only.'
The protestant churches have a communion problem, not a biblical canonization problem.
Ironically enough, the canonizing and then the mass production of the bible is the foundation of allowing so many schisms. When it was all separate scrolls, heavy on (good faith) interpretive guidance from hierarchical layers, it was super hard to separate the church from the bible. They were hand in hand. The cracks start forming and the printing press is the straw that breaks the camels back. Everyone and their bible can cut out the church (TM) and start their own church. At the beginning there were obvious ills addressed, but overtime without a huge inertial hierarchy there is a proliferation of every interpretation under the sun.
The story of the protestant church is replacing a heavy top down structure with a entrepreneurial bottom up structure. Avoiding some of the problems of a top down approach while adding problems of their own.
I personally wish there was more interfaith cooperation and communion, but once you go beyond a softball tournament, everyone organizes according to their tribe and the squabbles start.
I think it's simply because the idea of sola scriptura places the NT before the church and uses the NT to guide what the church should look like and how it should be organized. But the church existed before the NT canon.
I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.
The important distinction for me between the more modern-ish / fundamental / evangelical explanation and the Orthodox one is that while we both point to the Holy Spirit, one shows how rather than just accepting that it happened. That's why you see all of these kooky ideas about original text infallbility, or KJV being the only reliable translation, and so on pop up in modern times. When you set your literal sole source of doctrine as a text, the immediate set of questions which follow relate to qualifying that text. When you've accepted that everything that happened before the Reformation was unreliable, now you're stuck.
The important distinction for me between the more modern-ish / fundamental / evangelical explanation and the Orthodox one is that while we both point to the Holy Spirit, one shows how rather than just accepting that it happened. That's why you see all of these kooky ideas about original text infallbility, or KJV being the only reliable translation, and so on pop up in modern times. When you set your literal sole source of doctrine as a text, the immediate set of questions which follow relate to qualifying that text. When you've accepted that everything that happened before the Reformation was unreliable, now you're stuck.
We always have to be careful with our biases. Maybe it's my biases peeking but this wording seems to imply that "top down" is bad and "bottom up" is good (heavy vs entrepreneurial). One might observe that hierarchy is present in the scriptures explicitly, and that we have no model for bottom up at all. An alternative wording might be replacing a divinely instituted Church hierarchy with a chaotic, order-less gaggle of Churches.Quote:
The story of the protestant church is replacing a heavy top down structure with a entrepreneurial bottom up structure. Avoiding some of the problems of a top down approach while adding problems of their own.
Honestly? I don't. I wish there was unity. Many of the fractures are real. I wouldn't be in communion with a Baptist church. They believe other things from me entirely on a wide variety of topics.Quote:
I personally wish there was more interfaith cooperation and communion, but once you go beyond a softball tournament, everyone organizes according to their tribe and the squabbles start.
I can see your points, except the last one.
You can't even bring yourself to raise a glass and break bread with someone who also believes in the same Jesus as you. Thats just unbiblical. And that is demanding unity on your terms, not Jesus's.
Denominations didn't get invented during the great schism.
And this is why churches can't get anything off the ground beyond a passive aggressive softball tournament.
You can't even bring yourself to raise a glass and break bread with someone who also believes in the same Jesus as you. Thats just unbiblical. And that is demanding unity on your terms, not Jesus's.
Denominations didn't get invented during the great schism.
And this is why churches can't get anything off the ground beyond a passive aggressive softball tournament.
There's an Episcopalian school near us that allows all children to participate in communion when they occasionally have it at chapel. Doesn't matter if there atheist, Muslim, Jewish, or anything else.one MEEN Ag said:
I can see your points, except the last one.
You can't even bring yourself to raise a glass and break bread with someone who also believes in the same Jesus as you. Thats just unbiblical. And that is demanding unity on your terms, not Jesus's.
Denominations didn't get invented during the great schism.
And this is why churches can't get anything off the ground beyond a passive aggressive softball tournament.
All are welcome to partake if they feel comfortable doing so.
The existence of and participation of Western Christians in a Protestant denomination is a harsh, harsh renunciation of Catholicism.one MEEN Ag said:
I can see your points, except the last one.
You can't even bring yourself to raise a glass and break bread with someone who also believes in the same Jesus as you. Thats just unbiblical. And that is demanding unity on your terms, not Jesus's.
Denominations didn't get invented during the great schism.
And this is why churches can't get anything off the ground beyond a passive aggressive softball tournament.
It's basically saying: "Your errors are so great that we cannot stand here with you, we must set out and form our own church, which is closer to Christ and the Truth than where you stand. I'm sorry, we cannot be a part of the Roman Church."
So isn't it kind of weird to then turn around and want to have communion with them? What does that even mean or symbolize in this context?
It means that we all believe in Jesus and there is no difference too great to stop celebrating what Jesus did as fellow Christians.
Yeah there's millenniums worth of history over disagreements that go back beyond Luther or the great schism before it.
Did Jesus not create communion even in the presence of Judas who sought to betray him? How much more brotherly should we act when were all united in christ. In my mind, at the very least we should all be able to commemorate Christ living and dying for our sins together. The disagreements might start immediately after, but communion isn't about church structure, papal supremacy, sola scriptura, dancing, or even drinking alcohol.
Yeah there's millenniums worth of history over disagreements that go back beyond Luther or the great schism before it.
Did Jesus not create communion even in the presence of Judas who sought to betray him? How much more brotherly should we act when were all united in christ. In my mind, at the very least we should all be able to commemorate Christ living and dying for our sins together. The disagreements might start immediately after, but communion isn't about church structure, papal supremacy, sola scriptura, dancing, or even drinking alcohol.
Sorry. I was Baptist into adulthood and Orthodox for a good while now, so I feel qualified to say that I understand both fairly well. They're not the same religion, they don't believe the same things, they don't worship the same way, and they don't live life the same way.
Unity isn't found on my terms, it is only found in Christ. St Paul's teachings on this are quite clear.
"In Christ we who are many are one body, and each member belongs to one another."
"Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf."
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism..."
Can you honestly say that Baptists have the same loaf? The same faith? The same baptism? No, no, and no.
When a Baptist person says that they believe the very essence of our worship, what is at the core - Holy Communion - is mere symbol, I can't say we are of the same faith. We're so far apart on this that one side doesn't even understand or know what the other side is doing. Likewise baptism. At the end of the day we are not united in Christ. If we were, these would not be an issue.
And you exercise much the same discretion, I'm sure, when you look at Jews, Muslims, or Mormons who also "believe in the same Jesus as you," but believe different things about Him and would say they believe in the same God as you.
Unity isn't found on my terms, it is only found in Christ. St Paul's teachings on this are quite clear.
"In Christ we who are many are one body, and each member belongs to one another."
"Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf."
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism..."
Can you honestly say that Baptists have the same loaf? The same faith? The same baptism? No, no, and no.
When a Baptist person says that they believe the very essence of our worship, what is at the core - Holy Communion - is mere symbol, I can't say we are of the same faith. We're so far apart on this that one side doesn't even understand or know what the other side is doing. Likewise baptism. At the end of the day we are not united in Christ. If we were, these would not be an issue.
And you exercise much the same discretion, I'm sure, when you look at Jews, Muslims, or Mormons who also "believe in the same Jesus as you," but believe different things about Him and would say they believe in the same God as you.
one MEEN Ag said:
I've never understood the gotcha question about protestants and producing the bible.
Can I not trace the same early church fathers and councils up until the schism and then reformation? There's controversy surrounding the 80 or so books that make it into the various assemblies of the bible, but the main theme is still the same - the story of God told through the Jewish people and Jesus as the messiah. Clearly Jesus refers to Enoch, so that errs on the side of 'probably should be read' versus 4th maccabees could be probably be 'for reference only.'
The protestant churches have a communion problem, not a biblical canonization problem.
Ironically enough, the canonizing and then the mass production of the bible is the foundation of allowing so many schisms. When it was all separate scrolls, heavy on (good faith) interpretive guidance from hierarchical layers, it was super hard to separate the church from the bible. They were hand in hand. The cracks start forming and the printing press is the straw that breaks the camels back. Everyone and their bible can cut out the church (TM) and start their own church. At the beginning there were obvious ills addressed, but overtime without a huge inertial hierarchy there is a proliferation of every interpretation under the sun.
The story of the protestant church is replacing a heavy top down structure with a entrepreneurial bottom up structure. Avoiding some of the problems of a top down approach while adding problems of their own.
I personally wish there was more interfaith cooperation and communion, but once you go beyond a softball tournament, everyone organizes according to their tribe and the squabbles start.
I think Protestant churches have an authority problem. Hence my "cute" metaphor about young earth creationists finding dinosaur bones. How can you simultaneously affirm the validity of the authority of the church that promulgated the canon of scripture and reject the validity of that same church's authority over everything else?
There's a lot to unpack here. Somewhere a long the way a Baptist church did you dirty and while I can't apologize on any one elses behalf, I am sorry something has happened that makes your reply such a huge, irrevocable divide. But lets start from the top.Zobel said:
Sorry. I was Baptist into adulthood and Orthodox for a good while now, so I feel qualified to say that I understand both fairly well. They're not the same religion, they don't believe the same things, they don't worship the same way, and they don't live life the same way.
Unity isn't found on my terms, it is only found in Christ. St Paul's teachings on this are quite clear.
"In Christ we who are many are one body, and each member belongs to one another."
"Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf."
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism..."
Can you honestly say that Baptists have the same loaf? The same faith? The same baptism? No, no, and no.
When a Baptist person says that they believe the very essence of our worship, what is at the core - Holy Communion - is mere symbol, I can't say we are of the same faith. We're so far apart on this that one side doesn't even understand or know what the other side is doing. Likewise baptism. At the end of the day we are not united in Christ. If we were, these would not be an issue.
And you exercise much the same discretion, I'm sure, when you look at Jews, Muslims, or Mormons who also "believe in the same Jesus as you," but believe different things about Him and would say they believe in the same God as you.
"They're not the same religion,"
I don't see how they could be different religions (TM) in an honest discussion here. I go to a nondenominational church that focuses on...Jesus...as depicted in....the bible. Sounds familiar? To say that both of us aren't pointed both at Jesus as the center of our lives is laughable, and also pharisaical.
they don't believe the same things,
You're playing fast and loose here. Do we not both believe that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, lived a perfect life, died a death as penance for our sins, rose again and we're to live in peace with one another? Do we not both have the great commission? The golden rule and the greatest commandments in common? Are you saying that baptists don't get the holy spirit? Yeah we're going to have some disagreements on things, but do we not all cling to who Jesus is as He says who is His?. Welcome to denominations as well as humans.
they don't worship the same way
Yeah, things aren't exactly the same. Does childrens church, multiple services, open call for communion again make us so far apart that Jesus wouldn't even claim non-denominational Bible churches?
and they don't live life the same way.
I don't understand the living life comment. Do we not both seek to forgive one another? share the gospel? Give to those in need? Look out for the widows, orphans, and poor? Are you referring to the structure of church on sunday morning and bible studies? No daily liturgy? Is daily attendance what keeps us out heaven and you in it?
Is this a descriptive critic of back row baptists? Where everyone in an orthodox church is leaned into Jesus and everyone else is going through the motion on some songs, a short book report on a new testament tract (but not James its too harsh), and duck out at 11:45AM to go watch the Texans get demolished. Is there no one at any other denomination living life in the favor of God? Is there no one within the Orthodox church who isn't? This is again, pharisaical.
Can you honestly say that Baptists have the same loaf? The same faith? The same baptism? No, no, and no.
Yes I do. We are all united in Christ as our savior. That He is who we put our faith in, not ourselves, not another god. We call to Jesus and study his word in good faith. We are all baptized in Christ. John the Baptist baptized Jesus in water, but Jesus has baptized us all with the holy spirit. When people get dunked under water today is a public profession of faith, not a necessary requirement of salvation.
And you exercise much the same discretion, I'm sure, when you look at Jews, Muslims, or Mormons who also "believe in the same Jesus as you," but believe different things about Him and would say they believe in the same God as you.
Now you're just letting yourself go here. There's nothing in my post history on this thread or others that puts me in the same category as Oprah here. To say that Baptism is as far from Orthodox as Judiasm, Islam, or mormonism just undermines your own claims. Clearly the difference is what we all believe about Jesus. Modern Judiasm rejects Jesus as the savior, but calls out to the same God the father. Islam places high regard on Jesus, but rejects him as the Messiah. Instead they align with a plain warner 500 years later who does not fulfill any of the prophecies of the old testament. Mormonism claims God the father, Jesus as he lived died and lived again- but couldn't stop writing there and added an incongruent, extremely suspect extra writing by one man that Jesus came back in America.' In Christianity's eyes, these religions (in connotative usage of the term) miss the boat completely. To say that baptists or any denomination other than Orthodox that believes the life of Jesus and his claims is of equal folly just rings hollow.
You're not being honest with yourself if you can't see what unites us and what is stumbling blocks. Communion is act of worship about us all being united in Jesus. We both revere it. Somewhere along the way, 'when you gather in remembrance of me, through this bread and wine' became a huge huge dividing block.
Just how narrow of a view do you have to have to say, 'ths isn't even in the same ballpark' and do you think Jesus's grace isn't sufficient to cover any nondenominational misgivings?
This post is dismissive in an unintentional way. That is to say, you aren't meaning to be dismissive, but you are. No baptist church "did me dirty." I'm not having a dishonest discussion, and I'm not being a Pharisee. I'm not talking about grace, saying you suck, or that the grace of God is somehow invalidated by misunderstanding.
You aren't considering that perhaps I have a very good working understanding of the ecclesiology, soteriology, and Christology of both the Baptist and the Orthodox. Are you sure you can say the same?
Dismissive presumptions aside, I'm telling you that they're not the same. I came to that conclusion as a Baptist person coming to Orthodoxy. I was dismayed because I wasn't sure I could be that radical in changing my beliefs and my life. Since then the differences have been magnified further. It's difficult to even know where to begin explaining because, for example, I would never describe my faith as "focusing on Jesus as depicted in the bible."
Throughout this post you're defining faith as a set of beliefs. We have one of those too, as a baseline. It's the Symbol of Faith, we recite it at prayers and every service. It's not exhaustive, but as the word "symbol" means it implies the rest, but it isn't the faith. The faith is not a set of beliefs. The faith is not a true/false test of intellectual assent to a set of facts - or a set of scriptures.
But even so. You don't believe the same things as I do about nearly any of the definitive descriptions of Christian teaching as reflected in the scripture.
- Baptism
- Communion
- Prayers
- Fasting
- The teaching of the Apostles
You dismiss the differences in worship, but they are radically different in essence and purpose, not just in external expression. As the chief example -- the fundamental purpose of the Divine Liturgy is to come to God to offer a sacrifice. This sacrifice consists of "ourselves, each other, and our whole lives unto Christ our God" as well as an offering of bread and wine. We share a sacrificial meal with our God, who is the offering, the one giving the offering, and the one receiving the offering. That is the core of our worship, and you don't understand it that way, you don't practice it that way, and you literally disbelieve it.
Baptism is much the same. Even here when you're trying to say that we're all the same the baptism you talk about is a "public profession of faith." That's not what I believe. That's a fundamental rejection of what I believe about baptism.
As for living life. Don't get defensive. I'm saying when you look at how people live with regards to their faith, their faith does not play out in praxis the same way. Faith and praxis are inextricable, one from the other. Doing-being, they're the same, just as St James says - works reveal faith, or St Paul faith working through love. How you act reflects what you believe. We don't believe the same things, so we don't practice the faith the same way. This shouldn't surprise anyone. You don't take holy communion weekly (or more often, if possible). You don't go to confession. You probably do not fast (this is a general "you" at evangelicals - you personally may I do not know). You do not "redeem the time" as we do.
So let's start simply. Have you been to a Divine Liturgy?
You aren't considering that perhaps I have a very good working understanding of the ecclesiology, soteriology, and Christology of both the Baptist and the Orthodox. Are you sure you can say the same?
Dismissive presumptions aside, I'm telling you that they're not the same. I came to that conclusion as a Baptist person coming to Orthodoxy. I was dismayed because I wasn't sure I could be that radical in changing my beliefs and my life. Since then the differences have been magnified further. It's difficult to even know where to begin explaining because, for example, I would never describe my faith as "focusing on Jesus as depicted in the bible."
Throughout this post you're defining faith as a set of beliefs. We have one of those too, as a baseline. It's the Symbol of Faith, we recite it at prayers and every service. It's not exhaustive, but as the word "symbol" means it implies the rest, but it isn't the faith. The faith is not a set of beliefs. The faith is not a true/false test of intellectual assent to a set of facts - or a set of scriptures.
But even so. You don't believe the same things as I do about nearly any of the definitive descriptions of Christian teaching as reflected in the scripture.
- Baptism
- Communion
- Prayers
- Fasting
- The teaching of the Apostles
You dismiss the differences in worship, but they are radically different in essence and purpose, not just in external expression. As the chief example -- the fundamental purpose of the Divine Liturgy is to come to God to offer a sacrifice. This sacrifice consists of "ourselves, each other, and our whole lives unto Christ our God" as well as an offering of bread and wine. We share a sacrificial meal with our God, who is the offering, the one giving the offering, and the one receiving the offering. That is the core of our worship, and you don't understand it that way, you don't practice it that way, and you literally disbelieve it.
Baptism is much the same. Even here when you're trying to say that we're all the same the baptism you talk about is a "public profession of faith." That's not what I believe. That's a fundamental rejection of what I believe about baptism.
As for living life. Don't get defensive. I'm saying when you look at how people live with regards to their faith, their faith does not play out in praxis the same way. Faith and praxis are inextricable, one from the other. Doing-being, they're the same, just as St James says - works reveal faith, or St Paul faith working through love. How you act reflects what you believe. We don't believe the same things, so we don't practice the faith the same way. This shouldn't surprise anyone. You don't take holy communion weekly (or more often, if possible). You don't go to confession. You probably do not fast (this is a general "you" at evangelicals - you personally may I do not know). You do not "redeem the time" as we do.
So let's start simply. Have you been to a Divine Liturgy?
Do you think Baptists, or more or less any protestants, receive the Holy Spirit?
You point to peripherals, but say we are different at the core. Lets go straight to the core. Do you think that Jesus isn't for protestants, that He doesn't live or do works in their lives? That protestants are cut off and don't receive God's grace?
Everything else is important, but not essential. The thief on the cross wasn't saved because he went to liturgy that morning, or having the perfectly similar beliefs about baptism, he didn't even know what communion was. It was believing in Jesus as the savior.
You point to peripherals, but say we are different at the core. Lets go straight to the core. Do you think that Jesus isn't for protestants, that He doesn't live or do works in their lives? That protestants are cut off and don't receive God's grace?
Everything else is important, but not essential. The thief on the cross wasn't saved because he went to liturgy that morning, or having the perfectly similar beliefs about baptism, he didn't even know what communion was. It was believing in Jesus as the savior.
I know where the Holy Spirit is. I can't say where He isn't.
I am pointing to the core, but you're calling the core peripherals. Which is kind of the point.
Baptism is at the core, the Eucharist is at the core - just like circumcision and eating the Passover were at the core of being part of Israel.
Who are you to tell me what isn't essential in the faith I practice? Do you see the presumption?
Have you ever been to a Divine Liturgy?
I am pointing to the core, but you're calling the core peripherals. Which is kind of the point.
Baptism is at the core, the Eucharist is at the core - just like circumcision and eating the Passover were at the core of being part of Israel.
Who are you to tell me what isn't essential in the faith I practice? Do you see the presumption?
Have you ever been to a Divine Liturgy?
Because of these fundamental, core differences between Orthodoxy and Baptist that you have listed, do you consider Baptist to be lesser?
So you're saying no. And any deviation from your prescribed Orthodoxy means no as well. Nary a prayer has been heard by God outside the Orthodoxy halls across time it seems.Zobel said:
I know where the Holy Spirit is. I can't say where He isn't.
I am pointing to the core, but you're calling the core peripherals. Which is kind of the point.
Baptism is at the core, the Eucharist is at the core - just like circumcision and eating the Passover were at the core of being part of Israel.
Who are you to tell me what isn't essential in the faith I practice? Do you see the presumption?
Have you ever been to a Divine Liturgy?
We are arriving at the core. I believe Jesus is sufficient. You do not. You require vigilant religiosity. You can't defend the thief on the cross getting salvation without placing God's grace above all of these religious actions you deem core. Again, they are important. Not essential to salvation. I can point to you very faithful bible studies that I've been a part of where members are constantly praying for one another, confessing their sins to one another, taking week long fasts, putting hands on in prayer, breaking bread together, diving deep into the bible, living out the great commission and yet you say, 'God's not here, this isn't Christianity as this isn't the Orthodox church.'
When people talk about its not a religion its a relationship - this is it. And this is why I can't stand when people point to a bureaucracy as the gatekeeper of Christ.
As a side note, this is all pride.
The fact that we can't even get other denominations to raise a cup and break bread in the name of Christ together is the manifestation of pride. That each of our groups have it figured out, and the others don't. Among fellow Christ followers by the way. No one's asking to break bread for Baal here.
The unity is in Christ alone. Just like the old joke says, 'There's gonna be a lot of shocked people looking around about who got into Heaven.'
The fact that we can't even get other denominations to raise a cup and break bread in the name of Christ together is the manifestation of pride. That each of our groups have it figured out, and the others don't. Among fellow Christ followers by the way. No one's asking to break bread for Baal here.
The unity is in Christ alone. Just like the old joke says, 'There's gonna be a lot of shocked people looking around about who got into Heaven.'
I'm not saying no. Its a pretty easy word to type, and I'm not mincing words here. If I thought the answer was no, I would have said as much. I have met people I believe to be saints in the formal sense of the word who were baptist.
Your comments here are shallow, and they shows a facile approach to the discussion that does you a disservice. They also do not reflect much of what I said, and in some cases ("God's not here") are the opposite of what I've said.
You aren't attempting to understand what the differences are, and you're leaning into your ignorance instead of attempting to ameliorate it.
The thief's name is St Dismas, by the way. He is often depicted in the other half of the Resurrection / Harrowing of Hades icon as waiting in Paradise with Abraham and the innocents when Christ takes the righteous dead out of Hades.
You're unwilling to listen when I tell you that having experienced both, they're radically different. Your beliefs are different than mine, and telling me that I'm prideful, or a pharisee, or that my faith in Christ is deficient in lieu of "religiosity" is ridiculous.
On the other hand, you won't even say whether or not you've ever even set foot in an Orthodox church. Yet you're an expert on me and my beliefs.
Your comments here are shallow, and they shows a facile approach to the discussion that does you a disservice. They also do not reflect much of what I said, and in some cases ("God's not here") are the opposite of what I've said.
You aren't attempting to understand what the differences are, and you're leaning into your ignorance instead of attempting to ameliorate it.
The thief's name is St Dismas, by the way. He is often depicted in the other half of the Resurrection / Harrowing of Hades icon as waiting in Paradise with Abraham and the innocents when Christ takes the righteous dead out of Hades.
You're unwilling to listen when I tell you that having experienced both, they're radically different. Your beliefs are different than mine, and telling me that I'm prideful, or a pharisee, or that my faith in Christ is deficient in lieu of "religiosity" is ridiculous.
On the other hand, you won't even say whether or not you've ever even set foot in an Orthodox church. Yet you're an expert on me and my beliefs.
I think the Baptist faith is not an accurate reflection of the faith of the apostles. I believe it is a deficient form, and that it is limiting because of that. And, I think the deficiency of it is detrimental to the spiritual growth of its adherents.
Contrary to the misrepresentation of what I'm saying, the statement above does not say that baptists are not Christians, are outside of grace, are denied the Holy Spirit, or whatever other false statements MEEN is trying to put in my mouth.
Contrary to the misrepresentation of what I'm saying, the statement above does not say that baptists are not Christians, are outside of grace, are denied the Holy Spirit, or whatever other false statements MEEN is trying to put in my mouth.
And how do you reconcile this statement with your previous statement that it's not even the same religion.
Gigem314
FINAL from Olsen Field at BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M 13, Houston 11
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
6