*raised hand* Just one question..

[Achronos]

I stand corrected, thanks.  The point that the canon was assembled by men still stands, though.

There was a 60 year gap between the Synod of Laodicea and the Synod of Carthage. The Lacodicean Synod opened the canon and the finazlized canon wasn't closed until the Carthage Synod which took place in 419AD. The texts of the Holy Bible are ecclesiastic texts, not simple literary texts.

Regarding assmbled by men professor John Romanides explains: “From the Orthodox viewpoint, that which makes the text divinely inspired is not the original words themselves, but the interpretation of those words by those who have attained theosis; because, no matter how accurate the text may be to the original, in the hands of those without theosis and outside the Church, its interpretation will be worthless. Even if they were given the very manuscripts of the prophets and the apostles to read and to study, the grand mystery of piety will still remain concealed from them; this is because the text per se is not that which is divinely inspired. Only the author is divinely inspired, when having attained theosis; or, divinely inspired can be the writings pertaining to someone who attained theosis, provided these texts are interpreted by someone who has attained theosis."

[Recusant]

OK, let's look at this issue.  Writing of the Council of Laodicea, bible-researcher.com has this to say:

The authenticity of paragraph 60 below has been doubted by many scholars because it is absent from various manuscripts containing the decrees of the regional (Galatian) Council of Laodicea. The list may have been added later. On the omission of Revelation see Cyril of Jerusalem.

In any event, even if one accepts that the 60th canon issued by the Council of Laodicea is authentic, there is still a difference between it's list and the one produced by the Council of Rome, namely the 1st does not include the Apocalypse, the 2nd does.

60. It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel. And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.

From Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon:

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."

I note that the Protestants don't accept this canon as authoritative, preferring the one issued by the Council of Carthage. Maybe it's simply that they don't want to have something which had come from Rome (gasp!) dictating what is their official canon.  I'm wondering why you Achronos, who if I recall correctly, believes that the Apocalypse is canonical, would wish to accept the authority of the Council of Laodicea's list, with it's disputed authenticity, over that issued by the Council of Rome.

[lundberg500]

I was sure it was Constantine who made christianity into the only religion...

You can thank Theodosius for that. He made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE. He also was the one who ordered the massacre of 7,000 men, women, and children in Thessalonica in 390 CE and he banned the Olympic games in 393 CE because he considered them pagan. Great Emperor...  

[AnimatedDirt]

Well if you are looking for a fundamentalist answer, you'll have to wait for AnimatedDirt or gsaint to respond; that's not in my realm to discuss.

This is based on...?

[Recusant]

Well if you are looking for a fundamentalist answer, you'll have to wait for AnimatedDirt or gsaint to respond; that's not in my realm to discuss.

This is based on...?

 Our Orthodox member got himself a week's vacation from this den of vipers for doing something similar in another thread.  Personally, from what you've written during your time here, AnimatedDirt, I wouldn't have said that you exhibited fundamentalist traits.  If I were asked to guess, I would have thought something more along the lines of United Methodist or possibly Episcopalian.  I'm not asking you to confirm or deny any affiliation; it's just a light-hearted guess, as I said.

[AnimatedDirt]

Well if you are looking for a fundamentalist answer, you'll have to wait for AnimatedDirt or gsaint to respond; that's not in my realm to discuss.

This is based on...?

 Our Orthodox member got himself a week's vacation from this den of vipers for doing something similar in another thread.  Personally, from what you've written during your time here, AnimatedDirt, I wouldn't have said that you exhibited fundamentalist traits.  If I were asked to guess, I would have thought something more along the lines of United Methodist or possibly Episcopalian.  I'm not asking you to confirm or deny any affiliation; it's just a light-hearted guess, as I said.

Fundamentalist Christian

I've already discussed my specific belief system within Christianity...if you want to know, search the forum or simply ask Whitney.  One might conclude fundamentalism knowing this information.

Regardless of this, the connotation of "fundamentalist" has serious implications within and outside of Christianity given the above link.  I'm now having to wait on Achronos' reasoning.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I stand corrected, thanks.  The point that the canon was assembled by men still stands, though.

There was a 60 year gap between the Synod of Laodicea and the Synod of Carthage. The Lacodicean Synod opened the canon and the finazlized canon wasn't closed until the Carthage Synod which took place in 419AD. The texts of the Holy Bible are ecclesiastic texts, not simple literary texts.

Regarding assmbled by men professor John Romanides explains: “From the Orthodox viewpoint, that which makes the text divinely inspired is not the original words themselves, but the interpretation of those words by those who have attained theosis; because, no matter how accurate the text may be to the original, in the hands of those without theosis and outside the Church, its interpretation will be worthless. Even if they were given the very manuscripts of the prophets and the apostles to read and to study, the grand mystery of piety will still remain concealed from them; this is because the text per se is not that which is divinely inspired. Only the author is divinely inspired, when having attained theosis; or, divinely inspired can be the writings pertaining to someone who attained theosis, provided these texts are interpreted by someone who has attained theosis."

See, this is different from the view I was raised with, which was that the Bible, though written by men, was written under the guidance of the Spirit.

This view, by the way, is at the root of most American fundamentalism.

[Achronos]

OK, let's look at this issue.
I note that the Protestants don't accept this canon as authoritative, preferring the one issued by the Council of Carthage. Maybe it's simply that they don't want to have something which had come from Rome (gasp!) dictating what is their official canon.  I'm wondering why you Achronos, who if I recall correctly, believes that the Apocalypse is canonical, would wish to accept the authority of the Council of Laodicea's list, with it's disputed authenticity, over that issued by the Council of Rome.

Apocalypse of St John has always generated controversy, and it's something that the Orthodox Church does not use as part of the lectionary. The 60 year from the opening of Laodicea and the closure of Carthage was a time to assemble the Bible canoncially and seperate from the New Testament apocrypha.

There is no doubt that the Bishops who were assembled to have authority over what should be included in the Bible and not, knew the inconsistencies with the Gospels, Epistles of Paul etc. Like I quoted above, someone must be in that state of theosis for that interpretation to be consistent. If you want proof on how important that is, look at all the Protestant denominations who all hold to the Bible, yet have so many doctrinal disputes. The problem also comes with rationalizing and explaining away the obvious problems the New Testament has.

Good thing my faith isn't based on the Bible, otherwise I'd be in serious trouble.

[Achronos]

Well if you are looking for a fundamentalist answer, you'll have to wait for AnimatedDirt or gsaint to respond; that's not in my realm to discuss.

This is based on...?

Just a lighthearted jab, wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

[AnimatedDirt]

Well if you are looking for a fundamentalist answer, you'll have to wait for AnimatedDirt or gsaint to respond; that's not in my realm to discuss.

This is based on...?

Just a lighthearted jab, wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Gotcha.