ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

7-Ecumenecal Councils

On the last 4 blogs, my Melkite Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Friends have been bringing up the "7-Ecumenecal Councils."

I would like to know which Ecumenecal Council defined the apocrypha to be "Scripture?"

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---john9346 on 7/11/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



cluny states, "So what, john? The Criterion of the Orthodox faith is whatever has been held everywhere, at all times, by all the CHURCHES, which is the case for the Apocrypha."

Sir, you know now through out this dialog based on history and the testimony of the church fathers (east and west) that it is fallacious for you and Brendan to state and claim that the apocrypha has always been, "Scripture."
---john9346 on 8/9/16


"With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church [Oxford: Parker, 1845], Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX. 34, p. 424)
---john9346 on 8/9/16


Roman Catholics are not the CHURCH but are a PAGAN and SATANIC ORGINIZATION!!!!!
---Rob on 8/9/16


Strongaxe, did you know that the RCC doesn't view Protestants denomination as a Church?

You must have a valid Priesthood to have a Church in the RCC's view.

The RCC doesn't see itself as a Denomination but a Church.

Baptists, SDA, Assembly of God and etc. are Denominations.

Non-Denomination is impossible, but actually a Denomination which refuses to define itself with the traditional Protestant's views. (my view not the RCC)
They believe if they call their Church 'New Life Christians or Running River' it makes them non-Denomination.

Look in the phone book. They are listed underneath Protestant Churches section, but usually last.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/9/16


Cluny:

This can lead to circular reasoning:
1) Clearly, not ALL churches believe this. Otherwise, this subject would not even be up for discussion.
2) Therefore, if "all CHURCHES" IS applicable, you must be using a more narrow definition of "CHURCHES" than others. How do YOU define "CHURCHES"?
3) If you define "CHURCHES" as "those who hold to Orthodox doctrines", you have circular reasoning, as both "CHURCHES" and "Orthodox" are defined only in terms of each other.

Rufinus is not a saint.

What objective criteria do the Orthodox use to determine whether someone is a saint, and what theological authority do saints have that others do not?
---StrongAxe on 8/9/16




During the reformation,



cardinal cajetan and cardinal Seripando both rejected the apocrypha they both emphasize to follow Jerome in rejecting the apocrypha.
---john9346 on 8/9/16


So what, john? The Criterion of the Orthodox faith is whatever has been held everywhere, at all times, by all the CHURCHES, which is the case for the Apocrypha. It's not "whatever has been believed somewhere, sometime, by somebody." In any case, Rufinus is not a saint.
---Cluny on 8/9/16


Malito of Sardis a bishop rejected the apocrypha.

Hilary of Poitiers a bishop rejected the apocrypha

Rufinus rejected the apocrypha
---john9346 on 8/8/16


john9346:

You wrote: Sir, first, I'd ask you to please read the Blog Question and reply accordingly.

I was not addressing the blog question, as I am not competent to reply authoritatively on it. I was merely challenging the notion that just because someone doesn't actually explicitly say the words "this is scripture", one can't infer that they believe that - because Jesus and his Apostles frequently quoted scripture without ACTUALLY calling it scripture.

When someone makes a false assertion on any blog, proving that assertion false is always relevant, even if it has nothing to do with the blog topic itself.
---StrongAxe on 8/8/16


Cluny said, "When you show the place where ST. Athanasius said, "Gospels are scripture.""

If you read prior, this information has been stated, "Repeatedly."

Festal Letter 39.

Cluny states, "All the sites agree he was a monk and a priest. NONE of them say he was a bishop."

Sir, if you have genuinely researched this entirely (Not Google Research please) you must know it is not an error to say that he was a bishop even being a priest and a monk could be questioned.
---john9346 on 8/8/16




Strongaxe ask, "When Jesus and the Apostles quoted Moses and other OT books, how often did they ACTUALLY say "this is scripture"?"

Sir, first, I'd ask you to please read the Blog Question and reply accordingly.

Next, I'd refer you to Previous Blogs when I addressed elements to this question, "Strike Books from the bible.", "Explain Bible History.", and "Was there a Bible Deletion.", and "The Original Scripture."

If You want to discuss further, create a blog so we can focus on your question. This blog is not addressing canonicity, but that of historical Relevance.

Thank You for your understanding,

John
---john9346 on 8/8/16


\\Well, right that he quoted it, but show to everyone where he stated, "The apocrypha was Scripture."
---john9346 on 8/4/16
\\

When you show the place where ST. Athanasius said, "Gospels are scripture."

Google "John of Damascus". All the sites agree he was a monk and a priest. NONE of them say he was a bishop.

Fair enough?
---Cluny on 8/5/16


BTW, I forgot to mention that NO icon of St. John of Damascus shows him with ANY of the attributes of a bishop, much less in bishop's vestments, but in the garb of an 8th century monk.

Were he a bishop, the iconographic tradition would show it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/5/16


john9346:

You wrote: Well, right that he quoted it, but show to everyone where he stated, "The apocrypha was Scripture."

When Jesus and the Apostles quoted Moses and other OT books, how often did they ACTUALLY say "this is scripture"?
---StrongAxe on 8/5/16


cluny,

You state:

"Not according to most sources."

Tell us the sources.lol

"And St. Athanasius himself quoted the Apocrypha as scripture."

Well, right that he quoted it, but show to everyone where he stated, "The apocrypha was Scripture."
---john9346 on 8/4/16


\\"The righteous St. John of Damascus became a bishop and died at the age of 104."
\\

Not according to most sources.

And St. Athanasius himself quoted the Apocrypha as scripture.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/4/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Brendan said, "First of all, John, I am not at all sure that this is all Patriarch Bartholomew said."

First, how are you doing did you enjoy the time off?

The point is you and Cluny can not disregard Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Damascus, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome, etc. on what they have attested to regarding the "Apocrypha."

---john9346 on 8/3/16


So everyone seeking the truth can understand more about why the apocrypha was rejected.

The books of the apocrypha were written during (the-400-years of Silence) between the Book of Malachi and the Birth of Christ

The writer of Maccabees tells us about this time.

See, 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, and 14:41
---john9346 on 8/3/16


Cluny states, "Wrong again. He was not a bishop."

"The righteous St. John of Damascus became a bishop and died at the age of 104."

The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of America.
---john9346 on 8/3/16


cluny said, "
Not an Ecumenical council, and therefore of no authority So why do you keep bringing it up?"

Because it is a fact of history and canon 60 is in resemblacne of Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem Like I said before.

Remember, we all here need facts and evidence to tell us of what the church thought of the Pre-Reformation Era relating to the "Apocrypha."
---john9346 on 8/3/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


John 9346 quoted, "The foundation of Orthodox theology rests firmly on the tradition of the church fathers, namely on those whose inspiration and instruction have formed the conscience of the church through the ages,"

First of all, John, I am not at all sure that this is all Patriarch Bartholomew said.

And I really doubt that Christianity Today is an unbiased source when it comes to speaking to His All-Holiness
---Monk_Brendan on 8/3/16


\\John of Damascus a bishop.\\

Wrong again. He was not a bishop.

\\To add to this the many at the Council of Laodicea.\\

Not an Ecumenical council, and therefore of no authority.

So why do you keep bringing it up?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/3/16


Cluny states, "Pre-reformation Christians--the vast majority of all believers in Christ--accept both."

When you factor in Athanasius a bishop.

Cyril of Jerusalem a bishop.

John of Damascus a bishop.

Epiphanius a bishop.

Gregory of Nazianzus a bishops

To add to this the many at the Council of Laodicea.

This is not the vast majority of all believers accepting the "Apocrypha." as "Scripture."

Note, this is the Pre-Reformation Era.
---john9346 on 8/2/16


cluny states, "So what? Jews don't accept the New Testament, either."

But to whom were the Oracles of God entrusted to??
---john9346 on 8/2/16


Send a Free Thinking of You Ecard


\\Augustine states clearly theJews did not accept the Apocrypha.
\\

So what? Jews don't accept the New Testament, either.

Pre-reformation Christians--the vast majority of all believers in Christ--accept both.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/1/16


Augustine states clearly theJews did not accept the Apocrypha.


"During the same time also those things were done which are written in the book of Judith, which, indeed, the Jews are said not to have received into the canon of the scriptures ... And the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which, are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not, by the Jews, but by the Church,"

"The Jews do not have this Scripture which is called Maccabees, as they do the law and the prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as to his witnesses."

---john9346 on 8/1/16


To recap:

1. Brendan and Cluny have stated to us all factually that the 7-Ecumenical Councils didn't established the "Apocrypha." as "Scripture."

2. We know historically that Athanasius, John of Damascus, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Council of Laodicea rejected the apocrypha.

3. Historically, Epiphanius and Gregory of Nazianzus rejected the apocrypha.

4. The Glossa Ordinaria Historically states that the apocrypha was not always viewed and agreed on "Unanimous." as "Scripture."
---john9346 on 7/31/16


Brendan said, "So you can (as far as I am concerned) crow your victory and tell everybody that I am a big fat liar, Okay?"

Brendan my friend sir, you certainly have the "Wrong View." of me.

I find this way of thinking and blogging to be immature, childish, despicable, and I do disdain it...

I am on this blog to help all and I do find despicable the way of thinking that says, "Hey! I win you lose."

I don't understand what would
Always remember, I don't want to attack youI just want to dialog/discuss "Substantively."




BTW, I did ask you if you wanted me to provide you with more assistance regarding the gloss.
---john9346 on 7/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Brendan said, "it is still a commentary--that is, a book of what someone THINKS about the Bible."

Not according to the following:

"The foundation of Orthodox theology rests firmly on the tradition of the church fathers, namely on those whose inspiration and instruction have formed the conscience of the church through the ages,"

(Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today,
---john9346 on 7/21/16


John 9346 said, "I don't know...but when Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem state, "Minor Prophets." it is because they are counting it as 1 book so they are not rejecting the Minor Prophets."

In this I was wrong, and I apologize.

"Also, like I stated to you before the Glossa Ordinaria is a fact of Historical Witness and Testimony and even the catholic encyclopedia recognizes it important value and contributions to the fathers."

John, to be honest with you, I had never heard of the Glossa until such time as you brought it up. However, no matter how Historical and Witness and Testimony it is, it is still a commentary--that is, a book of what someone THINKS about the Bible.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/20/16


Not only did Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Damascus, and the Council of Laodicea reject the apocrypha, but also Epiphanius and Gregory of Nazianzus rejected the apocrypha.
---john9346 on 7/20/16


John, finding a Glossa in English is possible. Finding one online is not. The cheapest one I can find is $142.00. They go up from there. I just saw one (On Amazon) for Ten Thousand Dollars! Either you are very rich, or are living in a library, or someone gave you an extensive library for you home.

I am a poor monk, and I cannot afford even a $.99 Kindle purchase, much less a book worth thousands of dollars.

And there is no way that I can reach you, physically to ask you to loan me an English translation. I am at a standstill.

So you can (as far as I am concerned) crow your victory and tell everybody that I am a big fat liar, Okay?
---Monk_Brendan on 7/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Brendan sir,

First, I do not want to have a dialog of Canonicity because it is a category all by itself.

The Blog Question is centered on if the apocrypha has always been "Scripture." prior to the reformation.

I don't know if you are aware or not but when Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem state, "Minor Prophets." it is because they are counting it as 1 book so they are not rejecting the Minor Prophets.

Also, like I stated to you before the Glossa Ordinaria is a fact of Historical Witness and Testimony and even the catholic encyclopedia recognizes it important value and contributions to the fathers.

The gloss is what guided the church father (theologians, bishops, translators, etc.)
---john9346 on 7/20/16


ruben said, "For someone to keep saying 'Everyone seeking the truth', why do you leave so much out,"

Well sir, I believe you are not understanding the blog question the question is which of the Ecumenical Councils defined the Apocrypha, "Scripture." this question is centered on prior to the reformation was there full agreement that the apocrypha was "Scripture."

This is not a blog to address canonicity of which you are stating.

Athanasius rejected the Wisdom of Solomon and many of the books that the Council of Trent classified "Scripture." see Festal Letter 39:7.

keep your response on the question it is very much appreciated.<

Thank You,

John
---john9346 on 7/20/16


John 9346 said, "Sir, with respect to you, this is patently false because the Glossa Ordinaria clearly "Contradicts." this statement..."

Is the Glossa Scripture itself? No, and you know it. I have protested against your use of commentaries before.

Athanasius also did not recognize Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah or Malachi.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/20/16


John 9346, Cyril of Jerusalem also does not recognize any of the minor prophets. His list ends with Daniel, just like Athanasius.

Do we really want to take the word of scholars who do not even recognize even the abbreviated Protestant Bible, much less the full count of the Scriptures?
---Monk_Brendan on 7/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon, here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc.

"the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon.
The Glossa Ordinaria
---john9346 on 7/20/16


St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books."


(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, on The Canon).

---john9346 on 7/20/16


\\The Roman Catholic Historian Karl Joseph von Hefele argues for the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea.\\

Who means absolutely NOTHING to the Orthodox.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/20/16


Brendan said, "But John, haven't you been reading what I have posted? The 60th Canon is disputed, and unless you can give me a NON-BIASED writer that will be able to satisfy me about the dispute, I can't agree with that, and you should just drop that point."

But Brendan did you read my response to you, "The Roman Catholic Historian Karl Joseph von Hefele argues for the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea."

Also, note, the dispute is over manuscripts and less of examining what the close examination reveals have you read them side by side sir??
---john9346 on 7/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Brendan states, "
St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture."

Sir, with respect to you, this is patently false because the Glossa Ordinaria clearly "Contradicts." this statement...

Are you aware the gloss was the training mannual through out church history which folowed Jerome's Rules of Classification.

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia (on the canon) affirms Jerome's Rules of Classification as also stated in the Glossa Ordinaria.
---john9346 on 7/20/16


Athanasius stated that the Apocryphal Books were inventions of heretics , (The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles."

Festal Letter 39:7.


---john9346 on 7/19/16

John9346

For someone to keep saying 'Everyone seeking the truth', why do you leave so much out,

St Athanasius does term Baruch as a canonical book, and exclude the book of Esther! In his writing he does use the same books you have mention as Scripture.

According as the wisdom of God testifies beforehand when it says, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication." (Wis. 14:12)Against the Heathen, 9 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:9.
---Ruben on 7/20/16


John 9346 said, "In addition, if one reads the list of books by Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea they are similar with an exception (referencing OT)<"

But John, haven't you been reading what I have posted? The 60th Canon is disputed, and unless you can give me a NON-BIASED writer that will be able to satisfy me about the dispute, I can't agree with that, and you should just drop that point.

Besides that, postings I have made about Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius have been moderated!

THE MODERATOR IS A COWARD, AFRAID TO LET THE SIMPLE TRUTH SPEAK OUT FOR ITSELF!
---Monk_Brendan on 7/19/16


Addressing Brendan and all those genuinely seeking the truth.

The Roman Catholic Historian Karl Joseph von Hefele argues for the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea.

In addition, if one reads the list of books by Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea they are similar with an exception (referencing OT)
---john9346 on 7/19/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


Brendan states, "What that means, dear readers, is that Athanasius did not totally reject them, as John 9346 insists."

Everyone seeking the truth you can read where Athanasius stated that the Apocryphal Books were inventions of heretics for example, (The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles."

Festal Letter 39:7.

Also, the council of Laodicea doesn't mention these books either as well as Maccabees.
---john9346 on 7/19/16


John 9346 has said that the Council of Laodicea rejected the Apocrypha.

However The authenticity of the 60th canon is doubtful as it is missing from various manuscripts and may have been added later to specify the extent of the preceding 59th canon.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/19/16


john9346, I have found THREE Protestant sites saying that St. Augustine considered the Apocrypha to be inspired scripture.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/19/16


Sir, John of Damascus, Athanasius, the council of Laodicea, and Jerome do, "Contradict you."
---john9346 on 7/15/16

HOW??

how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391

The divine Scripture likewise saith that 'the souls of the just are in God's hand [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them." John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:15 (A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX:87
---Ruben on 7/18/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


On Athanasius and the Apocrypha: In other words, Athanasius considered these additional Deuterocanonical books in a class something other than "canonical" Scripture yet not "apocryphal." In modern times, we are tempted to consider an ancient religious text as either one of two things: either canonical Scripture or apocryphal literature. Yet in Letter 39, Athanasius expressed a third class of writing which he assigned to these Deuterocanonical books.

What that means, dear readers, is that Athanasius did not totally reject them, as John 9346 insists
---Monk_Brendan on 7/18/16


John 9346 said, "Everyone note, Cluny and Brendan are asserting that the Ecumenical Councils agreed with the apocrypha, but as they just stated both of them they do not know."

John, I did not say that, and you know it. I gave you a text that you could download about the 7 Ecumenical Councils. You obviously never read it, if indeed you ever downloaded it.

St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/17/16


Brendan and Cluny,

Gentlemen,

Thanks for finally admitting this fact...

I really appreciate you both for being honest in stating that the Ecumenical Councils didn't define the apocrypha to be "Scripture."

Everyone note, Cluny and Brendan are asserting that the Ecumenical Councils agreed with the apocrypha, but as they just stated both of them they do not know.

So, all we can now rely on is the "Unanimous Testimony." of the "Church Fathers East and West), for their are many who rejected the apocrypha as "Scripture."

If you both continue to state that everyone was in agreement then Athanasius, John of Damascus, Jerome, and others contradict the both of you.
---john9346 on 7/17/16


\\Sir, John of Damascus, Athanasius, the council of Laodicea, and Jerome do, "Contradict you."
\\

As I said before, they are exceptions, and Laodicea was NOT an ecumenical council.

Now, do you have something different to say?

Or are you going to continually repeat yourself?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/16/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


John, what part of "the Ecumenical Councils were called to settle doctrinal, especially Christological, controversies." do you not understand?

When all of the Bishops already accepted something, and knew it was true, there is no need to define it.

Despite what John of Damascus, Athanasius, the council of Laodicea, and Jerome have said, the Councils did not lay any doubt that the Apocrypha was true, and just as much the Word of God as the various books that the Protestants call Inspired.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/16/16


John 9346 has been asking about John of Damascus, Athanasius, the council of Laodicea, and Jerome not accepting the Apocrypha. He has asked this question quite a few times.

John, isn't THAT vain and repetitious?

The label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory).

Before that time, there was only the Catholic Church in Western Europe and elsewhere, and Orthodoxy in the East. And they all accepted the WHOLE Bible.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/16/16


cluny states, "john9346, as I told you, the Ecumenical Councils were called to settle doctrinal, especially Christological, controversies."

So sir are you telling us that the Ecumenical Councils never made a Formal Declaration pertaining to the apocrypha being "Scripture."

Cluny states, "That the Apocrypha were considered scripture was never questioned in this period, but only nearly 1000 years afterwards."

Sir, John of Damascus, Athanasius, the council of Laodicea, and Jerome do, "Contradict you."
---john9346 on 7/15/16


"There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark."

(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series Two, Volume IX, John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVII).
---john9346 on 7/15/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Hi Brendan,

There was no offense taken my friend, but always remember when I dialog with you and Cluny I will not engage in the "Juvenile Remarks.", "Snide comments." and "Personal attacks..." This type of behavior isn't help to all those reading who are genuinely seeking the truth.
---john9346 on 7/14/16


John 9346, it's obvious that the Moderator is not paying attention. Let it be--we know what you're saying.

If I have said something that offends you, please forgive me.

And John, I still want to have that dialog ongoing with you. I really do care! I care for, and pray for everyone that disagrees with me, and I ask God that if I am in the wrong He will show me.

And I do listen, as well.

Please talk to us again.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/14/16


Moderator,

Could you delete this post for me??

I have received the answer I needed.

---john9346 on 7/13/16


John 9346, you're just NOT going to give up on this, are you. Well, at this point you can wait until H*LL freezes over. I have given you adequate answer, and so has Cluny!
---Monk_Brendan on 7/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Moderator,

Could you delete this post for me??

I have received the answer I needed.
---john9346 on 7/12/16


Moderator,

Could you delete this post for me??

I have received the answer I needed.

Thanks for allowing me to post.

John
---john9346 on 7/12/16


john9346, as I told you, the Ecumenical Councils were called to settle doctrinal, especially Christological, controversies.

That the Apocrypha were considered scripture was never questioned in this period, but only nearly 1000 years afterwards.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/12/16


No, you're not, john.

You asked Brendan what Ecumenical (note the proper spelling, btw) council ACCEPTED the Apocrypha.

I'm asking you which one REJECTED it.

Can you tell the difference?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


Cluny ask, "Where did you get that idea, john9346?"

Cluny, Brendan is a monk and I am asking him a question.

Also, not sure how resorting to juvenile remarks, snide comments and personal attacks will help those hear who are seeking the truth in finding out which Ecumenical Council defined the apocrypha to be "Scripture?"
---john9346 on 7/12/16


Cluny ask, "Now, john9346, can you tell me which of the Seven Ecumenical Councils DENIED they were scripture?"

Actually, that is what I am waiting for Brendan and you to answer for us.

Here is the question gentlemen, "which Ecumenical Council defined the apocrypha to be "Scripture?"

Note as follows:

The First Council of Nicea (AD 325)

The First Council of Constantinople (AD 381)

The Council of Ephesus (AD 431)

The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)

The Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553)

The Third Council of Constantinople (AD 681)

The Second Council of Nicea (AD 787
---john9346 on 7/12/16


John 9346 said, "Sir, keep in mind you just contradicted yourself when you Previously Wrote the following:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. (Rev 22:18 KJV)

Blog, "Strike Books from Canon."


How did saying I don't have the money contradict Rev 22:18?

Besides, I am not the one using commentaries to attempt to understand the Bible. I have more than a few years of Bible study and research under my belt.

You are the one trying to exclude the "Apocrypha" from the Bible.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/12/16


\\Sir, are you "Stating." that the Council of Jamnia was 1 of the "7 Ecumenical Councils?"\\

Where did you get that idea, john9346?

Monk Brendan never said that.

Don't you understand English prose?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


I would like to know which Ecumenecal Council defined the apocrypha to be "Scripture?"John 9346

Those who adopt this heresy not only heap insults on representational art, but also reject all forms of reverence and make a mockery of those who live pious and holy lives, thus fulfilling in their own regard that SAYING OF SCRIPTURE, for the sinner piety is an abomination.(Sir. 1:25)Nicea II: Canon 16 (787):
---Ruben on 7/12/16


Brendan,

Sir, are you "Stating." that the Council of Jamnia was 1 of the "7 Ecumenical Councils?"
---john9346 on 7/11/16


Brendan said, "And if I did have that sort of money, I could put it to better use."

Sir, keep in mind you just contradicted yourself when you Previously Wrote the following:


For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. (Rev 22:18 KJV)

---Monk_Brendan on 5/27/16

Blog, "Strike Books from Canon."



---john9346 on 7/11/16


I said, "To add one more thing, the book "NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils" by Philip Schaff contains all of the teachings of the 7 Ecumenical (note the spelling, John) Councils."

It is a free download. It's also 875 pages long--have fun
---Monk_Brendan on 7/11/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture...In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

To add one more thing, the book "NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils" by Philip Schaff contains all of the teachings of the 7 Ecumenical (note the spelling, John) Councils
---Monk_Brendan on 7/11/16


Ecumenical councils deal ONLY with disputed issues.

The Scriptural standing of the Deutero-canonical books were NEVER disputed widely until the Reformation.

Now, john9346, can you tell me which of the Seven Ecumenical Councils DENIED they were scripture?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/11/16


John 9346 said, "Sir, with respect to you, you are wrong the catholic encyclopedia even states that the gloss was the Biblical Commentary and guide during the Medieval Times."

And I have been assured that if it isn't IN the Bible, it isn't God's Word, and therefor null and void.--Or are you following the traditions of MAN?

"If you still genuinely need help locating the gloss please let me know..."

I know where I can get it, the point is I don't have the $175.00 to buy it.

And if I did have that sort of money, I could put it to better use.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/11/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.