[hedgerowpete]

Long time reader here but very little posts done by me.

There are some books that interest me i have seen on line, i wont post a direct link to an advert but the books tittles ect.

So the first question, is it worth trying to under stand the Bible Gospels, or do i leave them alone and look else where for religous education and understandings?

I do go down the route of explaining and understanding, where do i go and is this bookk and its series worth buying?



Exploring the New Testament: The Gospels and Acts: Volume 1 Paperback – 22 Apr 2011
by Steve Walton (Author)

The first in a series of six textbooks written by authors who have extensive experience of teaching students in the first two years of university level study. It enables students to engage with the Gospels and Acts for themselves, and not just to be passive learners, and offers activities and challenges at introductory and intermediate levels, and the key background information needed to enable them to work at the required level. This new edition includes updated bibliographies throughout, numerous corrections, and new material on oral history, the non-canonical Gospels, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Off-Grid]

So the first question, is it worth trying to under stand the Bible Gospels, or do i leave them alone and look else where for religous education and understandings?

Mat 6:33* “But seek first the reign of Elohim, and His righteousness, and all these shall be added to you.

Read the Word for YOURSELF otherwise you will not know if you are being lied to by denominational biases.

 

[ActionJackson]

Long time reader here but very little posts done by me.

There are some books that interest me i have seen on line, i wont post a direct link to an advert but the books tittles ect.

So the first question, is it worth trying to under stand the Bible Gospels, or do i leave them alone and look else where for religous education and understandings?

I do go down the route of explaining and understanding, where do i go and is this bookk and its series worth buying?



Exploring the New Testament: The Gospels and Acts: Volume 1 Paperback – 22 Apr 2011
by Steve Walton (Author)

The first in a series of six textbooks written by authors who have extensive experience of teaching students in the first two years of university level study. It enables students to engage with the Gospels and Acts for themselves, and not just to be passive learners, and offers activities and challenges at introductory and intermediate levels, and the key background information needed to enable them to work at the required level. This new edition includes updated bibliographies throughout, numerous corrections, and new material on oral history, the non-canonical Gospels, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I like sticking to the basics. God and the Apostles "searched the Scriptures." Christ promised that when He ascended into Heaven that He would send us a "Comforter" -- The Holy Spirit. If we believe in Christ and have faith in Him then you will be given understanding as you read the Bible. Don't rely too heavily on man's commentaries. For every 1000 men there will be 1000 different opinions about what the Bible says. Read it for yourself and pray for guidance as you read. Pray for the truth and it will be revealed to you.

 

[Sloth]

you can start of simply reading the new testament but sooner or later you will come to a verse that is hard to understand or confusing in some way.

it is a fact that people interpret scripture differently so I would recommend a commentary to help explain it. I would try and figure out who or what denomination the prospective comes from as well.


As a Catholic I really enjoy the hardback navarre bible series. You can start off with the Gospels book. then go on from there once you finish reading.

The Navarre series has excellent catholic commentary as well as the nova vulgata included in small text.

Try to get into a reading pattern. When I was reading through the scriptures I would try to read 3 chapters a day... one for the father, son and holy spirit ;-)

 

[cat_1978]

I do go down the route of explaining and understanding, where do i go and is this book and its series worth buying?

Read this COMPLETE Ancient Bible which includes all the books that the other Bibles (Catholic or Protestant) REMOVED afterwords.

https://www.amazon.ca/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594

 

[Trogshak]

you can start of simply reading the new testament but sooner or later you will come to a verse that is hard to understand or confusing in some way.

it is a fact that people interpret scripture differently so I would recommend a commentary to help explain it. I would try and figure out who or what denomination the prospective comes from as well.


As a Catholic I really enjoy the hardback navarre bible series. You can start off with the Gospels book. then go on from there once you finish reading.

The Navarre series has excellent catholic commentary as well as the nova vulgata included in small text.

Try to get into a reading pattern. When I was reading through the scriptures I would try to read 3 chapters a day... one for the father, son and holy spirit ;-)

:thumb::thumb:

 

[PeterEnergy]

So the first question, is it worth trying to under stand the Bible Gospels

Y-E-S.

However, understanding the 40-43rd book in the series of at least 66 books is not the 1st question. Maybe the 1st question is how and why to pray. Certainly ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand any reading you do.

Although I cannot comment on the Steve Walton commentary, there are many excellent commentaries. I would certainly recommend reading the Gospels from a Study Bible. For me, they deeply open up the cultural references of the text. Good luck and let us know how it goes.

 

[Mazarine33]

Wow, what a question. I don't know about the books you all mention, so I can't comment on that.

But when people have asked me about reading the bible, I tell them to get a version they like. I like King James, it's what I grew up with. But it can be difficult to understand, and other versions like New International Version are written in 'modern' English.

Then I tell them to START with the New Testament. Read it first, and then read Psalms or the rest of the Old Testament. But start with the New Testament. It is good to understand the history that comes before Christ's birth, before His new covenant with man, but IMO it's more important to understand the covenant fully.

Just my suggestion. If you use the uncorrupted Word of God, you won't have to worry about being led astray.

Any classic bible concordance would be good to have. One that has been around for decades and has withstood the test of time, of being picked apart by scholars and lay persons. They are good to have as a study aid to assist with unclear passages.

 

[Trogshak]

Read this COMPLETE Ancient Bible which includes all the books that the other Bibles (Catholic or Protestant) REMOVED afterwords.

https://www.amazon.ca/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594

The problem with this Bible is its doctrinal commentary. Instead of just explaining Orthodox doctrine in a straight forward manner, it whines about how it is not Catholic. A prime example is its discussion of Eucharistic doctrine on page 1564. This Bible is also burdened with its warped, axe-grinding account of Church history starting on page xxi. Also, just look at the snarly tone by which cat_1978 promotes this particular Bible. :xeye: You can do better.

 

[hawgy54]

God says He will reveal ALL to us if we ask. John 16:
16 “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4 I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you, 5 but now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these things. 7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.
Also, 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
We dont have to rely on ANYONE other than the Holy Spirit for our understanding. Now this doesnt mean that we will know EVERYTHING. But is does mean that whatever God needs for us to know, we will. This also does not mean that we cant learn from other folks either, but we must make sure that others' teachings dont go against what God says.

There is one caveat though. You must be saved, which is how we receive the Spirit of God. Jesus said we must just ACCEPT Him, believe in Him, as little children believe what they are told. By this acceptance, believing in our HEARTS and Confessing with our mouths that we are sinners and Jesus is the Savior (Rom 10:9-10), we receive the Comforter/Teacher. This is the beginning of Eternity!

 

[PeterEnergy]

Read this COMPLETE Ancient Bible which includes all the books that the other Bibles (Catholic or Protestant) REMOVED afterwords.

For the record, it was my understanding that the Orthodox ADDED a few books afterwards.

 

[cat_1978]

For the record, it was my understanding that the Orthodox ADDED a few books afterwards.

The Orthodox did not added anything. This is the Ancient Bible that was used before Catholic Church cut books and pages and the Protestants cut even more books and pages. If you want modern "clipped" Bibles read the Protestant or Catholic mutilated versions.

 

[cat_1978]

The problem with this Bible is its doctrinal commentary. Instead of just explaining Orthodox doctrine in a straight forward manner, it whines about how it is not Catholic. A prime example is its discussion of Eucharistic doctrine on page 1564. This Bible is also burdened with its warped, axe-grinding account of Church history starting on page xxi. Also, just look at the snarly tone by which cat_1978 promotes this particular Bible. :xeye: You can do better.

The Good News of this Bible is that it is the un-clipped version that the Ancient Church used since the beginning.

 

[PeterEnergy]

The Good News of this Bible is that it is the un-clipped version that the Ancient Church used since the beginning.

Do you have a link refuting the Orthodox ADDED books from the RCC?

 

[Trogshak]

The Good News of this Bible is that it is the un-clipped version that the Ancient Church used since the beginning.

When was the scriptural canon closed for the Orthodox Churches?

 

[BabyBlue]

I like a guy named Dr. Mike Heiser. His doctorate is NOT in theology, but in ancient languages. He is a christian but never brings denomination into his discussions, rather he's translating and explaining what the ancient texts say in relation to the social and scientific understanding of the people who wrote it and the people it was written to. (The bible was written FOR us, but it was not written TO us. It was written TO ancient iron age Hebrews, which we are not. We have a different understanding of the world.)

He also has two Masters degrees in ancient middle eastern history, and something else I forget. Until just recently he was the Scholar In Residence for a group called the Lagos Bible Study, an on-going published and on-line peer-reviewed program used by most researchers.

The point is, he tries to give the most accurate translations and explanations and how that impacts us today. ( For instance ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of modern medical facts, believed a woman's fertility was directly linked to the length of her hair. Thus the social demand of women covering their head. A woman exposing her head was the same as exposing her genitals. God didn't demand head covering, social mores of the times did.)

His own website is drmsh.com and you can find tons of stuff with his presentations on utube. Take a look and see if his interpretations suit you.

 

[cat_1978]

Do you have a link refuting the Orthodox ADDED books from the RCC?

When was the scriptural canon closed for the Orthodox Churches?

The History of the Canon is a bit more complex and cannot be surmised in simple conclusion without the risk of losing critical details.

I include below a few links that I suggest should be read to get a more detailed view of the subject.

This link is in Romanian so I Google translated for you... if you find certain strange things like "canon egg" instead of Scriptural Canon ignore and go forward.

https://translate.google.com/transl...ipturi-vazute-punct-vedere-ortodox-70085.html

"In connection with the scriptural canon, we must also reveal a point where there is a dissension between the Orthodox East and the West. It is about the attitude towards the "anaghinoscomena" books (good to read), which, although not part of the biblical canon, are still printed by Orthodox along with the canonical books, recognizing them as instructive and moral.

In its attitude to the Anagynosomena books of the Old Testament, Orthodoxy is on the line of the best patristic tradition.

It is known that the Synod of Laodiceea (360-375), in canon 59, makes a clear distinction between "canonical books" and "non-canonical books", so that in the next canon (60) it gives the list of canonical books (between which, it is true , there are also mentioned two books "good to read": Baruh and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Saint Athanasius the Great, in his epistle of the year 367, confirmed by the Trulan Councils (692) and VII ecumenically (787) as the second canon of this Holy Father, divides the Old Testament books into three categories:

a) canonical books (between which he also counts the two non-canonical ones mentioned above).

b) non-canonical books, which he considers, along the lines of Tradition, good to read.

c) apocryphal books.

The Synopsis of the Holy Scripture is also attributed to him, in which the same three groups of books appear, the non-canonical ones being called "controversial", antilegomena.

The same strict distinction between canonical and non-canonical books is made by St. Epiphany of Cyprus (+ 403), Leontiu de Byzantium, St. John of Damascus (+754), and in West Rufin by Aquileea (+ 411), Fer. Hieronymite (+ 420) to

In the West, however, a new railway line will be inaugurated. Augustine (+430), who counted among the canonical books and some letters from the group of the "good to read": Tobit, Judith, I and II Macabei, the wisdom of Jesus Sirah and the wisdom of Solomon, specifying at the end that "these are 44 books who have authority for the Old Testament.

The local African councils from Hippo (393) and Cartagina (397 and 419) confirm the list of canonical books as established by Fer. Augustin. This attitude will predominate in the West and will be definitively sanctioned in the Roman Catholic Church by a decision of the Tridentine Council (1546)."

https://www.ocf.net/the-old-testament-canon/

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/holy-traditions-importance-to-canon-formation/


"The significance of the patristic and biblical witness to the importance of traditioning process to canon formation is that they alter the framework of debate. The tension between an authoritative Scripture and an authoritative Church is no longer an issue. This is because both have a common source, the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ via the Great Commission.

The dichotomy underlying the canon formation debate – an authoritative listing versus a listing of authoritative books — becomes suspect. This tension apparently stem from the Protestant versus Catholic controversy of the 1500s. Defining the canon as an authoritative listing of books supports the Roman Catholic view that Scripture is authoritative because it has the backing of the Church. Defining the canon as a listing of authoritative books reflects the Protestant view that Scripture’s authority is independent of the church.

The Orthodox approach is to understand the biblical canon as an authoritative listing of authoritative books. The apostolic writings were authoritative because they were written by the apostles and the bishops were authoritative because they were the apostles’ successors and the guardian of Scripture. For Orthodoxy, Scripture and Church cannot be separated because they comprise one organic whole."

From these links I understood that although the Canon was "closed" in the Ancient Church there were certain ways that were interpreted different by some major Church Figures. St. Augustine took a bit later a different route than St. Athanasius of Alexandria established route. Orthodox went St. Athanasius way while Catholics went St. Augustine way in the interpretation of the canon.

Saint Athanasius:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

I am not an expert in Canon but from what I read on the subject I support the Orthodox View, also because the fruits were good. The Books that remained in the Orthodox version did not give birth to heresy or anything bad. They are books "good for reading and spiritual development".

 

[PeterEnergy]

From these links I understood that although the Canon was "closed" in the Ancient Church there were certain ways that were interpreted different by some major Church Figures. St. Augustine took a bit later a different route than St. Athanasius of Alexandria established route. Orthodox went St. Athanasius way while Catholics went St. Augustine way in the interpretation of the canon.

Fascinating. Thanks for the post.

 

[Sloth]

There are variations on the Canon within the different Orthodox churches.
for example, 2 Esdras is accepted as scripture by Georgian Orthodox but not by Greek or Slavic. it is the Same with 4th Maccabees.

if you look at the Ethiopian Orthodox they accept the book of Enoch and Jubilees which no other Christian Church accepts.

Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon


So did the Georgian Orthodox add 2 Esdras? or did the Slavic and Greek Churches remove it?

 

[cat_1978]

There are variations on the Canon within the different Orthodox churches.
for example, 2 Esdras is accepted as scripture by Georgian Orthodox but not by Greek or Slavic. it is the Same with 4th Maccabees.

if you look at the Ethiopian Orthodox they accept the book of Enoch and Jubilees which no other Christian Church accepts.

Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon


So did the Georgian Orthodox add 2 Esdras? or did the Slavic and Greek Churches remove it?

As I explained the Orthodox view on the difference between Canonical Books, non-canonical books and apocrypha, ALL the Canonical and non-canonical books were included by the Ancient Church in the Bible. 2 Esdras was considered by some Fathers apocrypha just like Book of Enoch but other fathers considered it "good to read". So certain Churches decided to go with an interpretation of the Fathers and other with other interpretation. I personally like to have an open mind and I even gathered all the apocrypha (there is a collection of them) but seeing that there is a lot of interpretation regarding certain books I take them within arms length.

So the Greek did not remove 2 Esdras from the Bible and the Georgian did not add it. They simply listen to different Fathers on this decision. HOWEVER, in the case of the books removed by the Roman Catholic Church there are more Fathers and more authoritative (Saint Athanasius the Great will always be more authoritative than Saint Augustine) that are for those books than against those books that were removed. So there was no good reason to remove them, unless you want to be different then the Eastern Churches on purpose.

It is better to have an Authoritative and Complete Bible than one that is either less Authoritative or less Complete. Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ethiopian Church I say that the majority of Orthodox Churches strike a well balanced Bible both in authority (based on the Fathers) and as complete as one cane have without including apocrypha.