Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Church|Thu, Aug. 07 2008 12:35 PM EDT

Anglican Head Compared 'Faithful' Gay Relationships to Marriage

By Jennifer Gold|Christian Today Reporter

LONDON – The spotlight is back on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams today after letters emerged in which the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion says gay relationships could "reflect the love of God" in a way comparable to marriage, according to media reports.

Williams allegedly affirmed his liberal position on homosexuality in a leaked exchange of letters between 2000 and 2001 with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical living in his former archdiocese in south Wales.

According to media reports, Williams asserts in the letters his belief that parts of the Bible relating to homosexuality were addressed "to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience" rather than gay people in a relationship.

"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” one letter was quoted as saying.

As a theologian, Williams is liberal on the issue of homosexuality but adopts a more conservative position as leader of the Anglican Communion, which officially regards homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture.

The archbishop’s comments come just days after the conclusion of the once-in-a-decade Lambeth Conference, which reaffirmed the Anglican Communion’s official line on homosexuality.

Bishops at the conference, which ended on Sunday, called for an immediate halt to same-sex consecrations and blessings, and the suspension of cross-border interventions.

Williams said at the end of the conference that the Anglican Communion would be in “grave peril” if member churches failed to observe the moratorium.

The 77-million member Anglican Communion has been wracked with division, particularly since the 2003 consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. More than 200 conservative bishops boycotted the Lambeth Conference in protest of the presence of pro-gay bishops, including some of those involved in the consecration of Robinson. They held their own meeting, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), in Jerusalem in June.

In his strongest public acknowledgement of GAFCON to date, Williams had said he would look for ways to “build bridges” with bishops in the movement, who include Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi, Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen, and a number of UK bishops, including the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali.

Williams said he would send out a pastoral letter to each of the GAFCON bishops as a first step, but added that the bridge-building process would need some “teasing out” in the coming months.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    We were engaged in a dialogue. You call it a diatribe because you feel you are on the losing end of the discussion. If the tables were turned, you certainly would be more than happy to continue the "diatribe".

  • Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    St John,
    Nice jab, but as you've already said...Zechariah that Jesus spoke of could have been either one. But the Talmud seems to affirm which Zechariah He was talking about.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    okay, okay, I'm wrong and you guys are right. And Rufinus and Jerome are right where all the others were wrong and mistaken. And Melito and Josephus make clear what Jesus meant by his confusing reference to Zechariah son of Berechiah in Matthew. Forget me for my doubts and questions, and for thinking we could engage in a dialogue and not a diatribe. I'm done.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jesus said from Abel to Zechariah.
    Josepus said the the scriptures ended with the reign of Artexerxes (before the aporcrypha was written)
    And the Talmud said that God stopped speaking after Malachi and Zechariah passed.

    And since, as webmoore put it, the Jews were intrusted with the Holy Scriptures, I think that they are the ones to mandate was is, and isn't, inspired. But leave it to gentile Catholics to want to add corrupt material to a sacred book.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Also as I noted previously Rufinus accepted as 'ecclesiastical' all of the so-called Apocrypha, "

    ecclesiastical does not mean canon.

    "which the Protestants dropped at the Synod of Dort in 1618."

    I must be missing something. The Synod of Dort was a national synod. It dealt with arminianism. I can find no where that it rejected or accepted books of the Bible.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort
    http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

    " You are picking and choosing what suits your purpose and ignoring the larger question of Christian usage prior to Dort. "

    No, I'm going back to the word of God. He laid out Abel - Zechariah (Genesis to Chronicles). He said the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God (Romans 3:2).

    If it is good enough for Jesus and Paul, then it is good enough for me.

    "It is very self-serving, if not self-righteous. "

    As I've said, it is very self-righteous of you to call people self-righteous when they disagree with you.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Melito of Sardis' list is a list of the Jewish Canon, "

    THere is nothing wrong with the fact that he did not trust the people where he was and felt it necessary to go to Jerusalem to find the answer.

    "His answer differs from Jospehus and 2 Esdras."

    No, He and Josephus gave the same list, its just that some books were not mentioned separately as they were considered to be one work.
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/melito.html
    http://www.bible-history.com/JewishLiterature/JEWISH_LITERATUREThe_Old_Testament_Canon.htm

    " Secondly, apparently the Jews in the Holy Land preferred the Greek translation over the Jewish one as evidenced by the discoveries at Qumran and the obvious use of the Gospel writers of the Septuagint and not the Hebrew version. "

    uh.. no. While the Greek Septuagint was read by Jews in the Diaspora (because those who did not live in Israel knew Greek better than Hebrew), the text used in Israel itself, in the Temple in Jerusalem, was in Hebrew. In fact, The Talmud (and the Karaite mss.) states that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text). This fact also was attested to in the letter of Aristeas, purported to be written about 250 BC (http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm).

    The majority of the scrolls found in Qumran (90-95%) were written in Hebrew with some texts written in Aramaic and Greek. http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/resources/FAQ.shtml#language

    "Yes, the Talmud and Masoretic texts are different, but they are 200-400 years later. At the time of Jesus and the Gospel Writers and Paul, there was no established Jewish Canon and a wider usage of Jewish writings abounded, as exemplified in the Patristic Father, early manuscripts of the Christian Bible, early lists, finding at Qumram, etc. "


    You are wrong. Just because some texts were found in a library does not indicate they are considered canon. Many libraries, even religious libraries, have texts that are not canon.

    "So of the 20 Christian lists available, you favor 2, Rufinus and Jerome, but why them? They are NOT typical of the Christian Church at that time."

    You are ignoring my posts. As I've said, These lists go back to the people God said had been entrusted with the very words of God (Romans 3:2).

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html --- is an outdated list: "

    No its not. I provided the list to provide dates to when various lists are considered to have been written. But the list is accurate.

    "# 1 The date of the Muratorian Fragment is now disputed, "

    No its not. Two revisionists over 30 years apart who want to rewrite history does not make its date in dispute. Their single idea between them was reviewed and dismissed for want of evidence.

    "#2 Melito's list is of the Jewish Canon not Christian,"

    YES it is. Just because it MATCHES the Jewish one does not mean it is not Christian. He obviously thought it necessary to go to the people God had given the very word of God to get the list. See Romans 3:2.

    " #3 Origen's list is clearly recognized now as Eusebius' creation, "

    Uh. no.

    You are trying to ignore history and rewrite it. If you are going to make a sweeping statement, provide evidence. I have posted links to research. You make statements that contradict known history and provide no evidence.

    "# 6 is just an Christian Old Testament list and includes Apocrypha as do most of these lists,"

    Actually, Hilary made clear the Jews used 22. He said the Jews and Greeks in Rome added two apocryphal books.

    " # 7 & #8 are now disputed and usually dated later."

    So you are saying the Council of Laodicea did not happen when it happened? You're too much!

    "Even so, you will see that the usage of the early Christian Church differs from the Protestant Bible derived from the Synod of Dort. "

    I really dont care. We should go back as far as we can to use what Jesus used. The Hebrew bible in the Temple at the time of Jesus is what was used. It was good enough for Christ the Son of God, I think little ole me can use it.

    "Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon" by Lee Martin McDonald (a Protestant) or more espeically "The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon" by Geoffrey Hahneman (an Anglican). "

    As I've said, that tired idea was reviewed and rejected in the 1970s. It has not changed, nor has the research.

    I'm tiring of this discussion, because you keep ignoring my statements. Just because a list originated with the Jews does not mean it was wrong. Its like you hate to admit the Jews might have the word of God, which is exactly what PAUL wrote in Romans 3:2, "they have been entrusted with the very words of God."

    Please go read my my previous post on this matter (Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:17 pm), and hopefully this time you will actually read it instead of ignore it. Please answer the question I posed in it.

    The summary of the post is just as true now as when I first wrote it, oh so long ago:

    Yes, these lists reflect what the Jews thought was canon. That is appropriate, since Paul said in Romans 3:2, speaking of the Jews, "they have been entrusted with the very words of God."

    If it was good enough for Paul, why not for us?

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore, I recommend "Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon" by Lee Martin McDonald (a Protestant) or more espeically "The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon" by Geoffrey Hahneman (an Anglican).

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html --- is an outdated list: # 1 The date of the Muratorian Fragment is now disputed, #2 Melito's list is of the Jewish Canon not Christian, #3 Origen's list is clearly recognized now as Eusebius' creation, # 6 is just an Christian Old Testament list and includes Apocrypha as do most of these lists, # 7 & #8 are now disputed and usually dated later. Even so, you will see that the usage of the early Christian Church differs from the Protestant Bible derived from the Synod of Dort.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore, as I have noted previously Melito of Sardis' list is a list of the Jewish Canon, about which there was a great deal of confusion and questions at the end of the second century, which Melito could not answer in Sardis and traveled East to determine the order and number of books in the Jewish Bible. His answer differs from Jospehus and 2 Esdras. Secondly, apparently the Jews in the Holy Land preferred the Greek translation over the Jewish one as evidenced by the discoveries at Qumran and the obvious use of the Gospel writers of the Septuagint and not the Hebrew version. Yes, the Talmud and Masoretic texts are different, but they are 200-400 years later. At the time of Jesus and the Gospel Writers and Paul, there was no established Jewish Canon and a wider usage of Jewish writings abounded, as exemplified in the Patristic Father, early manuscripts of the Christian Bible, early lists, finding at Qumram, etc. So of the 20 Christian lists available, you favor 2, Rufinus and Jerome, but why them? They are NOT typical of the Christian Church at that time. Also as I noted previously Rufinus accepted as 'ecclesiastical' all of the so-called Apocrypha, which the Protestants dropped at the Synod of Dort in 1618. You are picking and choosing what suits your purpose and ignoring the larger question of Christian usage prior to Dort. It is very self-serving, if not self-righteous.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here is a list with date:
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "tell me how you come to favor one list"
    We already DID. You are choosing to ignore statements that have been previously made. Let me try again, from a previous post:

    We've already shown 3 lists by Christian Fathers that list the Bible as the Protestants have them - all by 400AD. Melito of Sardis did so ca. 170AD.

    While the Greek Septuagint was read by Jews in the Diaspora (because those who did not live in Israel knew Greek better than Hebrew), the text used in Israel itself, in the Temple in Jerusalem, was in Hebrew. In fact, The Talmud (and the Karaite mss.) states that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text). This fact also was attested to in the letter of Aristeas, purported to be written about 250 BC (http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm).

    Yes, these lists reflect what the Jews thought was canon. That is appropriate, since Paul said in Romans 3:2, speaking of the Jews, "they have been entrusted with the very words of God."

    If it was good enough for Paul, why not for us?

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here are the 20 earliest lists or manuscripts of the Christian Bible:
    1) Muratorian Fragment (date is disputed)
    2) Eusebius (HE 3.25.1-7)
    3) Catalogue in Codex Claromontanus
    4) Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 4.33)
    5) Athanasius (Ep. Fest. 39)
    6) Mommsen Catalogue
    7) Epiphanius (Pan. 76.5)
    8) Apostolic Canon 85
    9) Gregory of Nazanius (Carm. 12.31)
    10) African Canons at Carthage and Hippo
    11) Jerome (Ep. 53)
    12) Augustine (De Doct. Christ. 2.8.12)
    13) Amphilochius (Iam. ad Sel. 289-319)
    14) Rufinus (Com. Sym. Apos. 36)
    15) Pope Innocent (Ad Exsuper. Tol.)
    16) Syrian Catalogue of St. Catherine's
    17) Codex Vaticanus
    18) Codex Sinaiticus
    19) Codex Alexandrinus
    20) Peshitta

    Now before you and I argue about the particulars of any of these, like Rufunis' including 'ecclesiastical' books or Jerome's use of the apocrypha, tell me how you come to favor one list over the other except that it may or may not agree with the later Synod of Dort? Clearly, the majority of these lists differ from the so-called Protestant Bible, and clearly there was no clarity, but rather, great diversity about the canon in the fourth century.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    St Johns,
    Why do you ask about the term 'eunuch'?

    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/are-eunuchs-in-the-bible-the-same-as-homosexuals/

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "the facts remain that no listing or manuscript of the Christian Bible matches the Protestant Bible until 1618."

    We've already shown 3 lists by Christian Fathers that list the Bible as the Protestants have them - all by 400AD. Melito of Sardis did so ca. 170AD.

    While the Greek Septuagint was read by Jews in the Diaspora (because those who did not live in Israel knew Greek better than Hebrew), the text used in Israel itself, in the Temple in Jerusalem, was in Hebrew. In fact, The Talmud (and the Karaite mss.) states that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text). This fact also was attested to in the letter of Aristeas, purported to be written about 250 BC (http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm).

    Yes, these lists reflect what the Jews thought was canon. That is appropriate, since Paul said in Romans 3:2, speaking of the Jews, "they have been entrusted with the very words of God."

    If it was good enough for Paul, why not for us?

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    The only church that saw things different was the Catholic church.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Exactly,
    Melito's list is that of the Jewish canon, which excludes the apocrypha. It is the same as the Christian Bible, which excludes the aporcrypha. Therefore, the apocrypha is not scriptural.
    I said that Josephus specified that the true cannon was in place before the apocrypha came along. So, we can surmise that he didn't consider the apocrypha as canonical.
    The talmud may not be anymore scriptural than the apocrypha, but it is more historically accurate. And it shows that even the Jews believed that the aporcrypha can't be inspired, as they believed that God stopped speaking before the books of the apocrypha came into being.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, as noted previously Melito's list is a list of the Jewish Canon, not the Christian one, and the contents of Josephus' "22" books is uncertain. But more importantly, are we to take the words of the Talmud as Scriptural? For there is a lot in the Talmud, but I suspect that you are only grasping for straws, still not explaining why if all this is so obvious that the rest of the Church saw things differently.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    In the Talmud, Sotah 13:2 says "With the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi the latter prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased out of Isreal."

    So, after the Prophet Zechariah (not John TB's father), and the other named prophets died, the Holy Spirit did not speak. Any books written after that time were not canonical.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    John,
    In my study I see that the apocrypha was neither totally accepted or rejected before 1618. It was in much the same state as it is today...contreversial. But since apparently those invovlved in the Synod of Dort knew what truly dictated "inspired" (as I pointed out in my last post), they decided at that time to label the apocrypha as "uninspired." That didn't change the fact that some would still consider them as part of the canon, and some wouldn't.
    But as I pointed out that Josephus placed all the books of the Canon were written before the time of the apocrypha, and that the apocrypha was not inspired, nor canonical.
    By the way,
    Melito, Bishop of Sardis listed these books as Old Testament Canon in circa A.D. 170.

    Five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.
    Jesus Naue (Joshua), Judges, Ruth.
    The Four books of the Kingdoms (Both Kings and both Samuels)
    Two books of Chronicles.
    the Psalms
    Solomon's Proverbs
    Ecclesiastes
    Son of Songs
    Job
    Isaiah
    Jermiah
    the Twelve in a single book (the minor prophets)
    Daniel
    Ezekiel
    and Ezra

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    igh, are not all infants by your definition incapable of having intercourse, so who are the eunuchs born eunuchs that Jesus is talking about?

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, the idea of an 'ancient Palestinian Jewish canon' as opposed to an Alexandrian Jewish canon has long been dismissed. Read Sundberg 40 years ago. Indeed the discoveries at Qumran and the testimony of the early church fathers confirm a wider Jewish canon in Palestine than was later accepted by the Masoretic scribes. Josephus is the first extant voice to begin discussion of defining the last element of the Jewish Canon, the later called "Writings," which isn't really completed for another 300 years. Which explains why the Old Testament of the early Church differs from the later Jewish Bible, at least until the Synod of Dort in 1618, when the Protestants removed from the traditional Bible books that they didn't like, and whatever reasons you or they would like to proffer for their removal, the facts remain that no listing or manuscript of the Christian Bible matches the Protestant Bible until 1618.

  • igh »
    Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    St. John's ,
    We have been over that, being celebate in this reference is about physically cannot have intercourse (and not marrying too). Next Spiritually because you have given your life to Christ. You do not or cannot have intercourse (and not marriying too) dedicating your life solely to Christ.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    The only difference between the Protestant and ancient Palestinian Canon liesin organization. The ancient Bible lists twenty-four books. Combined into one each are 1-2Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah (reducing the number by four). The twelve Minor Prophets are counted as one book (reducing the number by eleven). ThePalestinian Jews represented Jewish orthodoxy Therefore, their canon was recognized as the orthodox one.
    Contrary to the Roman Catholic argument from Christian usage,the true test of canonicity is propheticity. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. So only books written by a prophet or accredited spokesperson for God are inspired and belong in the canon of Scripture.
    There is strong evidence that the apocryphal books are not prophetic, and since propheticity is the test for canonicity, this fact alone eliminates them from the canon. No apocryphal books claim to be written by a prophet. Indeed,Maccabees disclaims being prophetic (1 Macc. 9:27). Nor is there supernatural confirmation of any of the writers of the apocryphal books, as there is for prophets who wrote canonical books. There is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha, as there is in some canonical books (e.g., Isaiah 53; Daniel 9; Micah 5:2). There is no new Messianic truth in the Apocrypha. Even the Jewish community, whose books these were, acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.
    Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.-A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically from virtually every canonical book. However, he never once quoted from theApocrypha as inspired.Josephus (A.D. 30-100), a Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the Old Testament as twenty two books (= thirty-nine books in Protestant Old Testa-ment). Neither does he ever quote an Apocryphal book as Scripture, though he was familiar with them. In Against Apion (1.8) he wrote:For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from andcontradicting one another [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which are justlybelieved to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his law, and thetraditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes kingof Persia, who reigned at Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses....

    Artexerxes reigned 465BC to 424BC.
    So, here Josephus limits the Scriptures to the original, Jewish canon, and excludes the Apocrypha (which was written after the reign of Artaxerxes).

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    igh, I couldn't agree with you more that Jesus knew the correct Doctrine. So how do you interpret Jesus words here: “The disciples said to (Jesus), ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ But (Jesus) said to (the disciples), ‘Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.’” (Matthew 19:10-12)?

  • igh »
    Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    St. John's ,
    Jesus knew the correct Doctrine.

    Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
    Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
    Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
    Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
    Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
    Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
    Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
    Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

  • igh »
    Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i keep hearing 'gay love' man with man, is the same as heterosexual love , that is love between husband and wife. Can this be scientifically verified in any way?

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, the exact contents of Josephus' collection remain uncertain, so one cannot claim that he rejected all the books of the Apocrypha. He numbered the Jewish Canon at 22 books. 2 (4) Esdras, written about the same time, alludes to a 24 book Canon. Melito of Sardis goes 'East' to answer questions about the number of books in the Jewish Canon and comes back with 21 books. Clearly there was no set Jewish Canon at the time of Jesus and the early Church.

    Meanwhile, right on feetxxl!!!

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    tamna


    Yes, yes, I agree. Let's look at his works!!! Let's have a good look at his works as the "leader" of the Anglican communion.............

    The Anglican Communion is near open fracture or schism.





    as has been said to robinson" even if you were to resign it would not resolve the problem"

    the problem is that one side's understanding is that homosexuality is from god, not necessarily because it may or may not be innate, but because the fruit, the essence of homosexuality, the attraction to, and the desire to bond with the same sex is of the same spirit, as the spirit of the bonding among heterosexuals...... that is. it is out of mutual love , respect. trust, devotion and attraction for a committed shared life together. this understanding came from in addition to other tests thru a test of the witness of spirit.

    the other side has made no such no test but still feels compelled to stand on a 2000 year old teaching, somehow believing that antiquity absolves them from any testing.

    how is williams responsible for this division?

    the other side holds onto the belief that those who who came to this understanding acted out in ways that violated previous agreements. that these actions violated agreements of counsel, and in doing so violated the spirit of the commune. but those who support homosexuality believe that this understanding comes from the holy spirit and the one who lives in them. and that the actions of violation they committed. they were led to commit thru the same leading.

    is williams suppose to tell those who are standing on these revealings, to ignore them for the sake of those who live in cultures that for the last 200 years have incarcerated and executed people for homosexual. acts. they have made no public outcry against this treatment. their relative silence speaks volumes of their willingness to condone these injustices for the sake of their own theology.






    According to a lengthy article in Time Magazine up to 1900 Anglican ordained priests and bishops are considering converting to Catholicism because of where the Anglican Communion is headed.





    dont believe everything you read. but even if it is true, what does have to do with leading of the spirit in ones heart.



    every individual is entitled to believe what he believes without recrimination and the freedom to act on the those beliefs accordingly.

    how is williams responsible for this difference in understanding. he should be applauded, if the above article is true. because every word he has spoken has been to hold onto the communion. he has made no accusation to either side, or attempted to hold his understanding above those who would understand otherwise.


    CONTINUED

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    CONTINUED



    The Anglican Communion is fast becoming a laughing stock for its inability to take a real stand on anything except for yet another appeal for discussion. The Anglican Communion is suffering Death from Discussion.






    apart from discusssion, what would you have williams do with 2 sides who think opposite to each other.


    actually coming to the discussion has been a test of faith. we know division is of the sin nature, and that we believers have been instructed not to judge. those who came did so in faith, trusting in the holy spirit to reveal all truth, trusting that this discussion was among those who were equally seeking the truth, with those who equally loved and worshipped christ, and desired to share his spirit.

    every witness to this meeting has confirmed the overwhelming presence of this spirit. and i know of no reports by those who came, that their attendance was a waste of time or in vain.





    Are those the "works" we should look at?


    absolutely! what is of greater importance than the unity in the spirit of christ. is that not the fruit of ones faith?





    I would say that Williams may be a nice man. But the word WISE is not something I honestly feel can be attached to his name.






    your critcism has been noted but you have offered no solution to the situation.

    by all witness accounts, he did exactly what he was suppose to do.


    what denomination do you know that isnt divided over this issue?

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    The "Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams" should
    give back all the money he has taken in offerings
    and get a job that requires he get paid by the hour
    for work accomplised. How many souls have missed the Gospel because of him and his buddies?

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Josephus was a great historian and a priest in the first century. He rejected the apocrypha.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There is dispute as to whether Melito's canon does not contain all the books of the OT, although he certainly went out of his way to go east to determine the list.

    Jerome went and lived in Palestine where he translated the Old Testament books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome).

    Rufinus moved to Jerusalem and founded a monastary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannius_Rufinus).

    I think all three of them recognized the importance of determining what scripture Jesus used.

    As for which list to use, I think its evident nothing with historical or doctrinal errors (as compared with other books considered Scripture) can be considered Scripture. We also need to consider the points made by Prophet concerning what Jesus considered Scripture.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Melito's list is of the Jewish Canon, not the Christian one. Apparently there was questions about what books the Jews included and after frequent questions from his brother (bishop?) Onesimus, Melito unable to find this out in Sardis had to go East for the answer. His Jewish list doesn't include Esther, though, like at Qumran. Origen also produces a list of the Jewish Canon, but he includes the Maccabees at the end of his list of the Jewish Canon. Jerome rejected whatever was not originally written in Hebrew, and Qumran now provides some Hebrew versions of books previously thought written in Greek. In summary, it is clear that not only did the Church not inherit a closed canon of Scripture from Judaism, but that the Church was forced to determine an Old Testament canon for itself. So how do we choose and who chooses? Why pick Jerome's list over Cyril or Athanasius?

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As for reading the apocrypha, or any non-canonical book, in a church setting, I believe the Scripture should be preached through, as though teaching it, from the pulpit. I tend to shy away from topical sermons, and prefer to simply teach through the books of the Bible. There is enough material to take years to preach through the books of the Bible, so I see no need to preach through extra-Biblical books from the pulpit. However, I have no problem quoting from sources outside of the canon from the pulpit, but it should be obvious one is not quoting Scripture.

    Then again, I have no problem in studying extra-canonical books in a study group, just as we study the Bible in a Bible study.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    How about this...Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself. When we accomplish those two we can worry about it there is more we need to be doing....

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Melito "enumerates the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Minor Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. The last, no doubt, includes Nehemiah and possibly Esther, which is otherwise omitted" (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/melito-wace.html).

    "The books that [Melito of Sardis ( 170 A.D.)] lists follow very closely to the Old Testament in contemporary Protestant Bibles. Today, we would call the "four books of Kings" 1 Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings and II Kings. "The Book of Wisdom" is undoubtedly in this case, the Book of Proverbs, and Esdras was commonly the heading for Nehemiah and Ezra. (not to be confused with the Apocryphal book "Esdras"). Lamentations was considered a part of Jeremiah. The only book missing from Melito's list is Esther, which was held suspect by many Jews since it did not contain the Divine Name (YHWH). Esther, incidentally, also happens to be missing from the rolls of Qumran, amidst the "Dead Sea Scrolls". Esther and Song of Solomon were two of the disputed books at the Council of Jamnia. More importantly, it should be noted that the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, Esdras, I and II Maccabees, and Sirach) was still not accepted as Scripture" (http://www.earlychurch.net/Thecanon.htm).

    Either Esther was included in Esdras, or Melitos did not include it in the list quoted by Eusebius. Certainly Easdras contained what we call Ezra and Nehemiah.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If I am not mistaken, Jerome also considered what we have as the Old Testament to be canon, and nothing else.

    Jerome gave the canon of the old testament as we have it in his introduction to the book of Samuel and Kings, published about 391AD (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html). Jerome emphasized the differences between the Hebraica veritas and the apocrypha (see previous link, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon).

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore, Well done! Of the fifteen undisputed lists of the Christian Bible in the 4th century, the earliest lists we have, you found the one that almost matched the Protestant Bible. The fact that there is only one such list among the fifteen is significant though, and it must be explained why you prefer Rufinus' list over that of Athanasius, Jerome, Cyril, Epiphanius, or any of the others. Also, you failed to quote the next paragraph of Rufinus, where he wrote: "But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine." I presume then that you, like Rufinus, acknowledge and encourage the public reading in your churches of all of these Apocryphal works. Am I correct?

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Rufinus of Aquileia, a friend of Jerome, wrote "Exposition of the Creed" about 400AD, after the synods of Hippo and Carthage. In it, unless I'm mistaken, he named the canon as we have it today in the protestant Bible.

    "37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.

    Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith."

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_III/Rufinus/Commentary_on_the_Apostles%27_Creed/Section_37

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, I don't base my Canon on Jesus' obscure reference to Zechariah and don't recommend that you do either. Apparently no one else did either, since we have found no list of the Christian Bible, no manuscript, no publication that matched the Protestant Bible until the Synod of Dort in 1618. So how can we say that that's the real Bible?

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You also said "...it is less than smart to create a doctrine based upon it, but have you not created a Canon based upon it..."
    As have the Catholics. By saying that Zechariah was John the Baptist's father, they have created a Canon that would otherwise be non-existant. Because if Jesus actually did mean the Zechariah from Chronicles, then He would have put a limit on what Books were considered scripture.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I use the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" in my teachings. I use it extensively. If I were a prominent evangelist or teacher, would that make the book inspired? If, say, 1000 years from now, someone came across my notes and saw that not only I, but countless others used that book in their teachings, would that make them inspired and worthy of introduction to the canon?
    I agree with many of the early Christians that the apocrypha is indeed some good teaching (although many are obvious fables and full of historic and geographical inaccuracies), but not worthy of being part of the Word of God.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And again, the DSS only proves their existence. It proves nothing more. Remember there are other writings included in the DSS. Because they are grouped with scripture would you say it's wise to infer canonicity upon them as well?

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, I couldn't agree with you more that as far as the reference to Zechariah all we have is an assumption and that it is less than smart to create a doctrine based upon it, but have you not created a Canon based upon it? Secondly, I do believe that there are numerous allusions to the books of the Apocrypha in the New Testament and clear usage of them by the Patristics Fathers, but I do not need to insist upon the former to prove the later. Thirdly, the Dead Sea scrolls are significant for any number of reasons. One that Hebrew copies of Apocryphal books which Jerome thought were written only in Greek have been discovered. Secondly these books were not only widely quoted by the Church Fathers and included in their lists and manuscripts, they are also present and included in this Jewish sect of the first century. Where then is the evidence that the Jews had set their Canon before the time of Jesus? It is clear now that the Masoretic Jews set the Jewish Bible long after the Christians had left the synagogues and that the Christians relied upon a much larger collection of Jewish Scriptures than the Masoretic Jews or the later Protestants at Dort. That is all.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    John,
    You also said " I don't insist that the NT refers to books of the Apocrypha."
    Why the sudden change in opinion? In your post from Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:44 am in which you said "Prophet, the numerous quotations from and allusions to the books of the later Jewish Bible which appear in the New Testament cannot be distinguished from the numerous quotations from and allusions to books of the so-called Apocrypha which appear in the New Testament."
    Which, in true political style, you didn't say that the New Testament DID quote, but you did say that there was no distinguishing between the two. Kinda like saying they are, but they're not. Very vague.
    But you forget the quotations from Aratus in Acts 17:28, Menander in I Corinthians 15:33, and Epimenides in Titus 1:12. I don't hear anyone saying that those people's writings are scriptural.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    John,
    You said "But it is clear from the Dead Sea scrolls and the Patristic Fathers, that numerous Jewish writings were referred to as 'scripture' and 'inspired' beyond those later set by the Masoretic scribes or the Synod of Dort."
    No, it's not clear. As I've said, all that does is prove the existence of the apocrypha, not the acceptance. If you're going to take the fact that they were in the dead sea scrolls as proof that the aprocrypha is canon, you must take all the writings found in the scrolls as part of the canon.

    And as far as Zechariah is concerned, all you have is assumption, as do I. And to create a doctrine on an assumption is really....um...less than smart.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, first there is some uncertainty as to whom the Gospels are referring to. It is possible that Zechariah Ben Jehoiada, the son or grandson of Jehoiada, the high priest in the times of Ahaziah and Jehoash of Judah (2 Chronicles 24:20) who so stirred up resentment against himself that at the king's commandment they stoned him, and he died "in the court of the house of the Lord" and that this was the Zechariah whose murder Jesus alluded to in Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:50-51. The Gospel of Matthew records his name as "Zechariah son of Berechiah" though. This identification can be reconciled if Jehoiada was Zechariah's grandfather, and Berechiah his father; or if Berechiah was another name for Jehoiada, which is a bit of a stretch. There are other possible identifications for the person Jesus was referring to. In the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, "Zechariah son of Berechiah" is interpreted as Zechariah the father of John the Baptist, and his slaying is understood as taking place during the Slaughter of the Innocents by Herod. Either way, it is a bit of a stretch to take these Gospels references as conforming to the Protestant Bible's Old Testament, especially when elsewhere all references are only to the Law and the Prophets, and once also to the Psalms. But it is clear from the Dead Sea scrolls and the Patristic Fathers, that numerous Jewish writings were referred to as 'scripture' and 'inspired' beyond those later set by the Masoretic scribes or the Synod of Dort. I don't insist that the NT refers to books of the Apocrypha, but I see evidence of allusion and firm evidence of their use in the Dead Sea scrolls and Patristic Fathers. And the absence of any list or manuscript of a Christian Bible conforming to that Protestant Bible of the Synod of Dort speaks volumes.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jesus said in Luke 11:50-51
    That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

    Since the apocrypha was written after Chronicles, it's safe to say that Jesus didn't take much stock in any other un-inspired writings after that.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, I've already given you examples of people who have attested to the "protestant" Bible. I prefer the Hebrew OT, but you can call it what you want.
    And you still insist that the NT refers to the aporcrypha, which is a stretch. And even if by chance it does, so what? It refers to non-biblical teachings as well, but I don't see you jumping on the bandwagon to get them added to the Bible. The Book of Mormon refers to, and quotes, the Bible. So that must be part of the Word of God, too. But yet, I know you'll fight to the bitter end that the BOM is not inspired. As I see it, the Apocrypha is the first century version of the BOM. The Dead Sea scrolls only proves the existence of the Aprocrypha from the first century A.D., not the use, or inclusion, of them as inspired scripture.
    So, it sounds like neither of us has proved our point.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Church Fundraisers
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links