-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I am a Protestant but recently I've spent some time studying up on the early church (the beliefs and practices).
For those of you who are Roman Catholic- did you ever consider joining the Eastern Orthodox Church? What made you side with the Western Church rather than the Eastern?
For those of you who are Roman Catholic- did you ever consider joining the Eastern Orthodox Church? What made you side with the Western Church rather than the Eastern?
The Western Church commonly uses a version of the Nicene creed which has the Latin word filioque ("and the Son") added after the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This happened for several reasons. One, Scripture can be interpreted to reveal that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). Another reason for this insertion in the 5th or 6th century is that many of the German invaders of the Roman Empire had been under Arian influence and had a hard time accepting that Jesus had a Divine as well as human nature. The Church wanted to emphasize to them the Divine Nature. The Eastern part of the Church took exception to this, feeling that it had not been consulted and that the Council of Nicea in the 4th century was violated by an unilateral change to the Nicene Creed.
Additionally, the Byzantine Empire was irritated that the Western Church came to look to Charlemagne and his successors as their protectors. This was necessary for the Western Church inasmuch as for much of the time the Byzantine Empire was unable to protect them.
No, I never seriously considered the Eastern Orthodox Church simply because our respective theologies are so similar. I personally view the 2 Churches as the same Church. However, the Eastern Church suffers from caesaropapism, tends to divide on national lines with the danger of the State exercising undue control.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Eastern Orthodox. Their liturgy is absolutely superb. The separation of the Churches is like having the Church live on only one lung. Reunion is a must. How, and under what auspices it will occur, I cannot say. But I do look forward to it.
C
The early Church used the Greek Septuagint Old Testament exclusively as did Jesus and the Apostles, this was because the Septuagint was the only OT scriptures in existence at the time. The Roman Catholics have adopted the later 'Hebrew' OT version of the Talmudic Masorete Preists for their OT scriptures, the Masoretes did not complete their version of the OT until 1009 AD. The Greek OT was completed in the 3rd Century BC. The Eastern Orthodox have the superior Church and doctrine because they have the correct holy scriptures, as long as the RCC continues with the Masoretic Hebrew it will continue in it's corruption.
The early Church used the Greek Septuagint Old Testament exclusively as did Jesus and the Apostles, this was because the Septuagint was the only OT scriptures in existence at the time. The Roman Catholics have adopted the later 'Hebrew' OT version of the Talmudic Masorete Preists for their OT scriptures, the Masoretes did not complete their version of the OT until 1009 AD. The Greek OT was completed in the 3rd Century BC. The Eastern Orthodox have the superior Church and doctrine because they have the correct holy scriptures, as long as the RCC continues with the Masoretic Hebrew it will continue in it's corruption.
??? You are seriously, seriously mistaken
Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, uses the Septuagint. Their respective OTs are the same. The OT like the NT was canonized in the 390s. Eastern Orthodox Church has chosen to include a few additional books in its OT; these books were not part of the canonization. However, those additional books are just fine and never have been a source of controversy between the 2 respective churches.
Neither Church is superior to the other. Both are superior to protestant "churches".
C
??? You are seriously, seriously mistaken
Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, uses the Septuagint. Their respective OTs are the same. The OT like the NT was canonized in the 390s. Eastern Orthodox Church has chosen to include a few additional books in its OT; these books were not part of the canonization. However, those additional books are just fine and never have been a source of controversy between the 2 respective churches.
Neither Church is superior to the other. Both are superior to protestant "churches".
Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, uses the Septuagint. Their respective OTs are the same. The OT like the NT was canonized in the 390s. Eastern Orthodox Church has chosen to include a few additional books in its OT; these books were not part of the canonization. However, those additional books are just fine and never have been a source of controversy between the 2 respective churches.
Neither Church is superior to the other. Both are superior to protestant "churches".
The Latin Vulgate used the Tanakh over the Septuagint, portions of scripture not found in the Hebrew are called non-canonical by the RCC, in the Latin for example Tobit and Judith are translated from Aramaic! It is the Roman Catholics who allowed in the Aramaic and Hebrew Tanakh and then later the Masoretic. The Greek Orthodox use the Greek Septuagint exclusively just as Jesus and the Apostles did, the early Celtic Church also rejected the Hebrew of the Jews, the Roman Catholic Church has come to favour the Masoretic Hebrew and even Aramaic over the original Koine Greek.
The Protestants use the Jewish canon exclusively and are for the most part are followers of Judaism, but the Catholics are not all that far behind and may even catch up, the Roman Catholic Church has favoured the Aramaic and Hebrew over the true original Greek from Jerome and the Latin Vulgate onwards and that is why we see at this stage most Catholics not unlike Protestants except Jews and not Christians as God's chosen people and favour Jewish canon and scripture over a pure Koine Greek Holy Scripture. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has allowed in the manuscript corruptions that led to the Reformation and the Protestants, the Protestants as you can surely appreciate are completely lost and this is due to the weakness of the RCC in allowing in into the Church of Christ corrupted Jewish versions of the Old Testament.
J
I am a Protestant but recently I've spent some time studying up on the early church (the beliefs and practices).
For those of you who are Roman Catholic- did you ever consider joining the Eastern Orthodox Church? What made you side with the Western Church rather than the Eastern?
For those of you who are Roman Catholic- did you ever consider joining the Eastern Orthodox Church? What made you side with the Western Church rather than the Eastern?
Please excuse the sarcasim but, Wow an intellegent question. Sorry dont get many of those. Yes if I was not Roman Catholic I would probably be orthodox since they share so many of our beliefs and practicies. I was born RC and when I was a teen decided that the RC was the place to be. I guess simply put, i beleive the same things the RC beleives. I have studied the OC even did a major report on them in a theology class, and have friends there also. May be it sounds petty or triet but the customs and traditions also are a factor. My tration and costom is Roman, being of Polish decent. It was the Roman Catholics who converted pagan Poland and gave them their written language. Polish is phenetic like latin is.
I am a student of the early chuches my self it would be interesting to talk sometime. I am usually in the chat rooms, lounge mostly. If you ask about me most probably know me, or send me a message to my profile. Hope I answered your question. Take care and God bless.
Greetings
The Latin Vulgate used the Tanakh over the Septuagint, portions of scripture not found in the Hebrew are called non-canonical by the RCC, in the Latin for example Tobit and Judith are translated from Aramaic! It is the Roman Catholics who allowed in the Aramaic and Hebrew Tanakh and then later the Masoretic. The Greek Orthodox use the Greek Septuagint exclusively just as Jesus and the Apostles did, the early Celtic Church also rejected the Hebrew of the Jews, the Roman Catholic Church has come to favour the Masoretic Hebrew and even Aramaic over the original Koine Greek.
The Protestants use the Jewish canon exclusively and are for the most part are followers of Judaism, but the Catholics are not all that far behind and may even catch up, the Roman Catholic Church has favoured the Aramaic and Hebrew over the true original Greek from Jerome and the Latin Vulgate onwards and that is why we see at this stage most Catholics not unlike Protestants except Jews and not Christians as God's chosen people and favour Jewish canon and scripture over a pure Koine Greek Holy Scripture. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has allowed in the manuscript corruptions that led to the Reformation and the Protestants, the Protestants as you can surely appreciate are completely lost and this is due to the weakness of the RCC in allowing in into the Church of Christ corrupted Jewish versions of the Old Testament.
The Latin Vulgate used the Tanakh over the Septuagint, portions of scripture not found in the Hebrew are called non-canonical by the RCC, in the Latin for example Tobit and Judith are translated from Aramaic! It is the Roman Catholics who allowed in the Aramaic and Hebrew Tanakh and then later the Masoretic. The Greek Orthodox use the Greek Septuagint exclusively just as Jesus and the Apostles did, the early Celtic Church also rejected the Hebrew of the Jews, the Roman Catholic Church has come to favour the Masoretic Hebrew and even Aramaic over the original Koine Greek.
The Protestants use the Jewish canon exclusively and are for the most part are followers of Judaism, but the Catholics are not all that far behind and may even catch up, the Roman Catholic Church has favoured the Aramaic and Hebrew over the true original Greek from Jerome and the Latin Vulgate onwards and that is why we see at this stage most Catholics not unlike Protestants except Jews and not Christians as God's chosen people and favour Jewish canon and scripture over a pure Koine Greek Holy Scripture. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has allowed in the manuscript corruptions that led to the Reformation and the Protestants, the Protestants as you can surely appreciate are completely lost and this is due to the weakness of the RCC in allowing in into the Church of Christ corrupted Jewish versions of the Old Testament.
Eric
Greetings
The Latin Vulgate used the Tanakh over the Septuagint, portions of scripture not found in the Hebrew are called non-canonical by the RCC, in the Latin for example Tobit and Judith are translated from Aramaic! It is the Roman Catholics who allowed in the Aramaic and Hebrew Tanakh and then later the Masoretic. The Greek Orthodox use the Greek Septuagint exclusively just as Jesus and the Apostles did, the early Celtic Church also rejected the Hebrew of the Jews, the Roman Catholic Church has come to favour the Masoretic Hebrew and even Aramaic over the original Koine Greek.
The Protestants use the Jewish canon exclusively and are for the most part are followers of Judaism, but the Catholics are not all that far behind and may even catch up, the Roman Catholic Church has favoured the Aramaic and Hebrew over the true original Greek from Jerome and the Latin Vulgate onwards and that is why we see at this stage most Catholics not unlike Protestants except Jews and not Christians as God's chosen people and favour Jewish canon and scripture over a pure Koine Greek Holy Scripture. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has allowed in the manuscript corruptions that led to the Reformation and the Protestants, the Protestants as you can surely appreciate are completely lost and this is due to the weakness of the RCC in allowing in into the Church of Christ corrupted Jewish versions of the Old Testament.
The Latin Vulgate used the Tanakh over the Septuagint, portions of scripture not found in the Hebrew are called non-canonical by the RCC, in the Latin for example Tobit and Judith are translated from Aramaic! It is the Roman Catholics who allowed in the Aramaic and Hebrew Tanakh and then later the Masoretic. The Greek Orthodox use the Greek Septuagint exclusively just as Jesus and the Apostles did, the early Celtic Church also rejected the Hebrew of the Jews, the Roman Catholic Church has come to favour the Masoretic Hebrew and even Aramaic over the original Koine Greek.
The Protestants use the Jewish canon exclusively and are for the most part are followers of Judaism, but the Catholics are not all that far behind and may even catch up, the Roman Catholic Church has favoured the Aramaic and Hebrew over the true original Greek from Jerome and the Latin Vulgate onwards and that is why we see at this stage most Catholics not unlike Protestants except Jews and not Christians as God's chosen people and favour Jewish canon and scripture over a pure Koine Greek Holy Scripture. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has allowed in the manuscript corruptions that led to the Reformation and the Protestants, the Protestants as you can surely appreciate are completely lost and this is due to the weakness of the RCC in allowing in into the Church of Christ corrupted Jewish versions of the Old Testament.
I do not know where you get some of your "information". I will conduct my own research on use of the Septuagint in the Catholic Church. But as of now, all the information I have tells me that the Church's OT is based on the same Septuagint used by Jesus. The Church did NOT confine itself to adopting only those books in the Jewish bible which were thought to have only existed in Hebrew. Martin Luther himself criticized the Church for NOT restricting it's OT to books known to exist in Hebrew.
Your topic is a good one though, and I think a brief history of the OT Canon would be beneficial to all:
[SIZE=+2]A[/SIZE]ll Christians - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - agree that the Books in the Bible are the inspired, written Word of God but disagree on which Books belong in the Bible. Specifically we do not agree on the Old Testament (OT) canon - the list of Books inspired by God. The Catholic OT Canon includes - Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees - plus sections of Esther and Daniel which are absent from the Protestant OT. Protestant Christians do not accept these Writings as inspired by God and refer to them as the "Apocrypha".
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]ometimes this problem is used to defame the Catholic Church. As an example, John Ankerberg and John Weldon in their book, The Facts on Roman Catholicism, write:
Catholicism teaches that Scripture involves more than the canon accepted by the Jews, Jesus and the Church of the first four centuries, i.e., the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament. [A&W, p.33]
Allegedly the Catholic Church added to the OT that Jesus used.
[SIZE=+2]N[/SIZE]ow it may be true that Protestants share the same OT canon as Jews today; however, the situation was a little different during the time of Jesus. The Jews before the 2nd century A.D. did not appear to have a rigidly defined OT canon. In the words of James King West, a Protestant Bible scholar:
The Scriptures of Judaism were not, therefore, a precisely defined body of literature absolutely set apart from all other literature, but a central body of material, the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deut.), which from the time of Ezra had remained fixed as... the Scriptures par excellence, surrounded by other interpretive material of varying degrees of importance and authority. [S&W, p. OT 432]
By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
[SIZE=+2]B[/SIZE]efore the 2nd century, most Palestian Jews preferred a canon loosely similar to the Protestant OT; however, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred the larger canon found in the Greek Septuagint Bible - a 2nd-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. It was the "Bible" for the Greek-speaking Jews. When the Apostles began to evangelize the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, they used the already established Septuagint as their Bible. Using the Hebrew Scripture would have been as effective as using a Russian Bible to evangelize Americans. The Septuagint served to bridge the culture gap. Quickly the Greek-speaking converts outnumbered the Hebrew Christians. Scholars also recognize that the NT writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, e.g. Matt. 1:23. The Septuagint became the OT of the early Church. [S&W, p. OT 433]
[SIZE=+2]O[/SIZE]nly after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians. [S&W, p. OT 433]
[SIZE=+2]I[/SIZE]n the mid-2nd century, St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue With Trypho commented on the difference between the Christian OT and the Hebrew Canon. Tertullian during this period also commented on this difference. [JBC, p. 523] These comments and concerns would have been inappropriate, if the early Christians and Jews shared the same OT canon.
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]he OT of the most ancient surviving Christian Bible manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) - are Greek Septuagint text. Apart from holes and missing pages, the Codex Vaticanus contains all the Books of the Catholic OT, except I and II Maccabees. The Codex Sinaiticus only lacks II Maccabees but also includes IV Maccabees. The Codex Alexandrinus contains all of the Catholic OT Books plus III and IV Maccabees. These manuscripts show that the Septuagint with its larger and looser canon was the OT "Bible" of the early Church.
[SIZE=+2]I[/SIZE]n the 4th century, some Church fathers, especially those who debated with the Jews, like Jerome, favored the shorter Hebrew Canon. Some Church fathers like Ambrose and Augustine favored the larger canon of the Septuagint. Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522]. Jerome while favoring the shorter canon, several times in his writings cited Books from the larger canon as Scripture. [S&W, p. OT 434] The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon. The OT canon which they proclaimed is still found in Catholic Bibles today. The controversy continued but in 1441 the Council of Florence upheld this larger canon. In response to the Protestants, the Council of Trent definitively upheld the larger OT canon. [S&W, pp. OT 434-435; JBC, p. 517]
[SIZE=+2]N[/SIZE]ow the Catholic Church is not alone in accepting the Books which Protestants label as "Apocrypha." The Coptic, Greek and Russian Orthodox churches also recognize these Books as inspired by God. In 1950 an edition of the OT containing all these Books was officially approved by the Holy Synod of the Greek church. Also the Russian Orthodox church in 1956 published a Russian Bible in Moscow which contained these Books. [JBC, p. 524] More details from a scholarly Protestant viewpoint can be found in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford, 1977).
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]ome Christians attempt to discredit these Books by pointing out apparent historical errors contained in them. [A&W, p. 33] It is common knowledge among scholars that Tobit and Judith contain obvious historical inaccuracies; however, these Books are recognized as didactic parables, like Jonah. It is also common knowledge among scholars that Daniel suffers from similar glaring historical inaccuracies, e.g. Daniel 1:1. [S&W, p. OT 419] Some scholars have suggested that both Daniel and Judith may actually be a disguised historical account of Antiochus Epiphanes [S&W, p. OT 462].
[SIZE=+2]O[/SIZE]ther Christians may point to the immoral deceit of Judith in Judith 9:10-13 in an attempt to discredit this Book. [A&W, p. 33] Unfortunately the OT contains other less than edifying practices, for example: the deceit of Jacob in Genesis 27, incest in Genesis 19:32 and inhumanity in Psalm 137:9. Also in Hosea 1:2, God commands the prophet Hosea to marry a woman who would commit adultery. These OT events simply show the need for Jesus Christ. Finally we cannot use human reason alone to judge the Word of God.
[SIZE=+2]I[/SIZE]n conclusion the Catholic Church did not add to the OT. The Catholic OT Canon (also the numbering of the Psalms) came from the ancient Greek Septuagint Bible. Protestants, following the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, accept the shorter Hebrew Canon, even though the Jews also reject the NT Books. The main problem is that the Bible does not define itself. No where in the Sacred Writings are the divinely inspired Books listed completely. (The Table of Contents is the publishing editor's words, like the footnotes.) The Bible needs a visible, external authority guided by the Holy Spirit to define both the OT and NT Canons. This authority is the Magisterium of the Apostolic Church. As St. Augustine writes, "I would not have believed the Gospel had not the authority of the Church moved me." [Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 15th ed., 129:8]
REFERENCES
[A&W] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Roman Catholicism (Eugene, OR; Harvest House Publishers, 1993).
[JBC] The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), Vol. II, Chap. 67.
[S&W] Donald J. Selby & James King West, Introduction to the Bible (New York; The Macmillan Co., 1971).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.