How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

[PRmerger]

My friend, I have to ask: are you really interested in discussion?

This is a curious question to ask someone who has been posting here since 2006, with over 17,000 posts to my name.

 

[PRmerger]

For certain it’s often necessary to minimize quoted sections, especially given the 6000 limit on the forum. However, there’s a difference between that and quoting a section of what someone said, ignoring what followed after that, and asking questions or making statements that demonstrate you either did not fully read or fully understand what the person said, or just ignored it. If you think I did the latter to Bryan in that post, please demonstrate it. If you read the thread, you’ll see I fully considered what Bryan had said in the original post, and in fact our conversation was very civil and he didn’t accuse me of misquoting him or mining his post for little “gotcha!” moments. If you think I did that, present how, rather than just responding with what amounts to a tu quoque fallacy.

Tu quoque is not a fallacy. It is simply a way of saying, “But you do it, too”. Or, of pointing out hypocrisy.

When it is true, it can’t be a fallacy, eh?

Regarding your additional responses to me - you talk about language and speak as if I’m arguing “These writings are both in Koine Greek. Clearly they’re the same person.” With all due respect, my friend, that shows you have a poor understanding of the study of Biblical languages, and your sarcasm simply betrays your ignorance.

I said nothing that was even remotely sarcastic, BW. Sarcasm is the protest of the weak and I rarely use it.

When I speak of identifying authors by language, that refers to their linguistic style, not merely whether or not the language itself was the same. Some examples: Luke’s writings demonstrate a high form of Greek, like a doctor giving a presentation to medical students; Paul’s writings demonstrate an educated but casual form of Greek, like a college professor chatting with his students at a coffee shop; John’s writings bare a Semitic style, like (for lack of a better comparison) a Mel Brooks character. It also deals with how they use certain words, phrases, etc. This is what is meant by studying an author’s “language.”

Ok.

Your response where you speak of theology mishandles my original post by cutting it up, talking as if I’m trying to give the single-most necessary trait for a document to be declared inspired, and then claim I’m saying it’s theology.

But you have not yet given an answer to us regarding this very important question.

Besides the fact that’s a blatantly dishonest straw man, it ignores the context of which I said it (note I began that section with “for example”), and that I was speaking of theology in a general sense. You call it “sacred tradition” - are you saying Second Temple Judaism belongs to the Roman Catholic Church’s sacred tradition? So the non-believing Pharisees and other Jews, who likewise belong to the Second Temple Judaic era, were part of sacred tradition?

Theology, in general, without the Scripture for context, consists purely in Sacred Tradition.

There is no other way to proclaim the* kerygma *in the absence of the codex.

 

[joe370]

PR, you need to actually read what I have said, understand it and then respond to what I have said… please re-read my posts and note that my case can’t be the same as yours b/c you can’t revisit the matter b/c in your mind it has been infallibly determined. In contrast, I argue against the infallible authority of the CC. I accept that the early church (and the bishops thereof) have/had a limited fallible authority. Can you see the difference…if not, keep reading what I have posted until you have it figured out…like B_Wolf, I have no desire to keep explaining the same thing over and over again b/c you can’t be bothered to take the time to understand what I have written.

No one and no church leadership has the charism via the guidance of God, to interpret and teach infallibly, in your opinion. We are simply left with an infallible bible with no way to infallibly interpret it or infallibly discern and expound, regarding the teachings therein. I understand your position.

Does the following seem reasonable:

If the notion of the absolute sufficiency of scripture is to hold water then we would expect to find it everywhere taught and practised in the early Church, as well as the early Christian liturgical life being dominated and shaped by the practice of sola scriptura.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s an oversimplification of the argument that Catholics would (or should) make. I mean, seriously…

We might say this:

The Bible Was Written by the Catholic Church

The book of Acts records that the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” at Antioch. And around 107 AD, a man named Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, wrote the following:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Note that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; he uses it as if it were a term that his readers would already be familiar with. This suggests that the Church was already called “Catholic” much earlier than the date of his letter. Since the last of the original apostles, John, died of natural causes as late as 95-100 A.D., it may well be that the early body of believers was collectively known as the “Catholic Church” within the lifetime of the beloved Apostle.

So, the followers of Christ were known as the “Catholic Church” almost from the beginning, and the Catholic Church penned, preserved, protected and preached the books that later came to be known (along with the Old Testament) as the Bible.

That’s what we might say.

I disagree, this is a wrong way of reading Patristics. You are trying to assign modern understanding to Patristic text when they themselves in the past has no concept of our modern usage of the terms.

First, the term “Christian” was a derogatory term at the time of the Acts of the Apostles. If you read later when the King of Judea (Herod’s grandson) questioned St. Paul, he mockingly asked St. Paul if he will be turned into a Christian. The underpinning meaning is that if he will be made crazy like all the other followers of Christ.

“Catholic” isn’t a name of the Church back then, but rather it is a mark of the Church. As you can see in the Creeds (both Apostle’s and Nicene) we call the Church as “Catholic Church”. This isn’t to mean the Church we recognize today as the one centered in the Vatican. Back then faiths were very ethnic, very nationalistic. Judaism was the faith of the Jews, Greeks have their own gods, and so on and so forth. The Christian faith was the first faith that really crossed the national borders, because Jesus came to save all, not just the Jews. Thus it was called “catholic” in the truest sense of the word.

 

[PRmerger]

Are Pliny the Younger and Celcus (who I referred to in an earlier post) part of sacred tradition?

No, they are not part of ST.

But surely you are not saying that because they listed Philemon, Hebrews, Jude and 1,2, 3 John as part of the canon that this is how you know that they are inspired?

You seem to be positing that, since the early Christians proclaimed them to be inspired, that this is how you know them to be inspired.

And, of course, that is what ST is. “The testimony of the early Christians” as one non-Catholic Christian carefully maintained, in an attempt to avoid saying, “It was through Sacred Tradition that we know what was inspired.”

 

[benjohnson]

Oh? Who says we stopped? We’re just more sneaky about it now.

May I request dry wood?

Seriously? You think this was formal Catholic doctrine? C’mon…I was hoping for better from you.

I’m not trying to harp - Lutherans have done hideous things. But used it as a rather dramatic change in response to heretics.

If one were to make the argument that the Catholic church barely changes - that would be quite a defensible argument, but to claim that it doesn’t change is… well… difficult to defend against unless the person you’re talking to can make the same division between dogma and praxis.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

PRmerger;

Regarding your first post, number of posts and length of date refer to nothing about character, it simply means you have a large number of posts and have been here a while. My question was a perfectly legitimate one to ask someone who cuts up quotes, ignores sentences right after the quoted section which explain that thought, and misrepresent the person’s position. In fact, your not using the multi-quote function demonstrates one reason your post count is so high.

Regarding the tu quoque comment quickly:

Tu quoque is not a fallacy. It is simply a way of saying, “But you do it, too”. Or, of pointing out hypocrisy.

Tu quoque is well recognized as a fallacy. It is fallacious because arguing that someone else does what you’re guilty of does not remove your guilt. And as I said in my post before, if you think I did to Bryan what I have pointed out and demonstrated you have done, then demonstrate I did so. Otherwise, it’s empty bluster.

You say regarding my demonstration of your mishandling of my section on theology and factors concerning inspired states: “But you have not yet given an answer to us regarding this very important question.” I have given an answer, many times, as I believe anyone who reads this conversation honestly will be able to see. If you’re referring to the idea of a “necessary” factor that tells us a book is theopneustos, I invite you to go back and see I never argued there was a need for one single, grand ability to discern what makes something inspired - you introduced the idea without demonstrating why it was important. I have been saying this whole time that what is theopneustos is theopneustos the minute God “breathes” it through His inspired authors, and our identification of inspired work can be found through many factors. There is no cookie cutter criteria for this, as anyone who studies the history of scripture and how we identify who wrote what and when will know.

You say: “Theology, in general, without the Scripture for context, consists purely in Sacred Tradition.” So, if I understand this correctly, a form of theology that stems from a non-Christian source that predates Pentecost, is sacred tradition? So what the Jews who lived during the time before the birth of Christ is sacred tradition, and what non-Christian Jews believed as they were persecuting and killing Christians up until the time of the destruction of the Temple is part of sacred tradition? Again, I really don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying. Second Temple Judaism does not refer to a Christian thought, it refers to a line of thought believed by a group of people in a certain region.

You agree that Pliny the Younger and Celcus are not part of sacred tradition, then add: “But surely you are not saying that because they listed Philemon, Hebrews, Jude and 1,2, 3 John as part of the canon that this is how you know that they are inspired?” No, and I never said that. What I said was clear. I invite you to go back and read it carefully. You likewise add: “You seem to be positing that, since the early Christians proclaimed them to be inspired, that this is how you know them to be inspired. And, of course, that is what ST is.” I didn’t argue that - again, read what I wrote. I said that external sources - namely non-believers - said that early Christians treated them as inspired. I did not say “this is how I know them to be inspired”, I did not say the early Christians themselves were the source, or that this single factor determined their inspired status. What I said was that the testimony of non-Christians - rather than Christian sources from either that time period or a later time period, and hence could be labeled by some as biased - gave historical, external evidence for the time period at which certain books were considered inspired, or who wrote what book and hence could be considered inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger;

Regarding your first post, number of posts and length of date refer to nothing about character, it simply means you have a large number of posts and have been here a while. My question was a perfectly legitimate one to ask someone who cuts up quotes, ignores sentences right after the quoted section which explain that thought, and misrepresent the person’s position. In fact, your not using the multi-quote function demonstrates one reason your post count is so high.

There are a multitude of ways to post here on the CAFs, and to object to my posting style is, frankly, as absurd as my objecting to the fact that you left the CAFs for 2 years, posting last in Dec, 2010, with a hiatus until our current month.

Regardless, I can assure you that I am indeed here to discuss and dialogue.

I might assume that your objection to my posting style is borne not out of irritation with its style, but rather with the fact that its content causes you to squirm and perhaps consider that which you have never posited before? Such as, how you can deny the authority of the CC yet affirm her Holy Book.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I might assume that your objection to my posting style is borne not out of irritation with its style, but rather with the fact that its content causes you to squirm and perhaps consider that which you have never posited before? Such as, how you can deny the authority of the CC yet affirm her Holy Book.

At this point, my friend, I have a feeling nothing I say will change your mind, so I will have to back out of the conversation between us here. God bless, and I shall be praying for you.

 

[benjohnson]

Let me ruminate on this… let me ask around to see the reaction I get when I mention this premise. I suspect that it will be be discounted, but let me gather evidence.

Have you found success with this argument?

Ok… I asked around. From the Lutherans, I got answers that held up that the Catholic church has stayed mostly the same. From my Baptist friend he actually agreed. From three Catholic friends, I got a earful about VII, altar rails, communion in the hand and the Charismatic movement. I then asked them about dogma specifically, and they said it has stayed the mostly the same.

Frankly, I was surprised, so if this is an indication that you’re not changing, then well done.

 

[PRmerger]

It is fallacious because arguing that someone else does what you’re guilty of does not remove your guilt.

Again, there is no guilt in having a posting style that differs from yours.

And as I said in my post before, if you think I did to Bryan what I have pointed out and demonstrated you have done, then demonstrate I did so. Otherwise, it’s empty bluster.

You have done that which you criticized me for.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Just sayin’…

You say regarding my demonstration of your mishandling of my section on theology and factors concerning inspired states: “But you have not yet given an answer to us regarding this very important question.” I have given an answer, many times, as I believe anyone who reads this conversation honestly will be able to see. If you’re referring to the idea of a “necessary” factor that tells us a book is theopneustos, I invite you to go back and see I never argued there was a need for one single, grand ability to discern what makes something inspired - you introduced the idea without demonstrating why it was important.

Fair enough.

So what, then, is your criteria for the inspiration of Hebrews, Titus, Philemon, Jude, 1,2 3 John that would include those books and exclude the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Gospel of Barnabas, 1, 2 Clement?

 

[PRmerger]

At this point, my friend, I have a feeling nothing I say will change your mind, so I will have to back out of the conversation between us here. God bless, and I shall be praying for you.

That’s too bad. (The part about your leaving. Not the part about your praying for me.)

It does make it appear as you have been squirming as you consider my points.

But…

http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/BuhBye.jpg

 

[adrift]

I’ve been feeling that since page one. Interesting to see, after my time away, that underhanded questions towards non-Catholics continue in this part of the forum. If one is going to ignore everything said to them and keep repeating questions ad nauseum, why bother entering beginning discussion?

Are you referring to the starting of this thread to be underhanded?

Not at all.

Then why did you say that underhanded question towards non-Catholics continue and wonder why bother entering(doesn’t that mean starting) beginning discussion?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Then why did you say that underhanded question towards non-Catholics continue and wonder why bother entering(doesn’t that mean starting) beginning discussion?

I said it continues because I experienced much of it before my break, and it always discouraged myself and others from responding to threads started by some Roman Catholics asking questions, and I was responding to the comment about an unspoken argument. Some of the stuff going on in the other threads and other people’s comments told me it was continuing.

The “entering” referred to beginning discussion, I apologize for the dangling participle. That was a mistake on my part.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok… I asked around. From the Lutherans, I got answers that held up that the Catholic church has stayed mostly the same. From my Baptist friend he actually agreed. From three Catholic friends, I got a earful about VII, altar rails, communion in the hand and the Charismatic movement. I then asked them about dogma specifically, and they said it has stayed the mostly the same.

Frankly, I was surprised, so if this is an indication that you’re not changing, then well done.

P-shaw, friend. P-shaw! shaw:

 

[PRmerger]

Where else can the answer possibly lie, other than the church? I really am attempting to view things from a protestant perspective, but I got nothin’.

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

 

[adrift]

I said it continues because I experienced much of it before my break, and it always discouraged myself and others from responding to threads started by some Roman Catholics asking questions, and I was responding to the comment about an unspoken argument. Some of the stuff going on in the other threads and other people’s comments told me it was continuing.

The “entering” referred to beginning discussion, I apologize for the dangling participle. That was a mistake on my part.

You have totallay confused me. This post makes no sense to me.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

You have totallay confused me. This post makes no sense to me.

Forgive me, it’s past midnight here on the east coast, and it’s been a long day. Jrtrent had made mention of a “different question” the individual he was speaking to was meaning to ask. I had noticed, reading comments between others and in other threads, that some want to engage in dialogue for what seems to be an understanding of another point of view, or perhaps for clarification, but really it boils down to an ulterior motive.

As I said before, I wasn’t referring to your OP of this thread, and if you took it that way and I caused unnecessary offense, I apologize. Please forgive me, sir.

 

[joe370]

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:
You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

:yup:And regarding the catholic church and the catholic collection of books, even Martin Luther saw the inescapable principle of fragmentation and disunity that lies at the heart of the man-made tradition, sola scriptura:

“If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the [Catholic] councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.”

 

[adrift]

Forgive me, it’s past midnight here on the east coast, and it’s been a long day. Jrtrent had made mention of a “different question” the individual he was speaking to was meaning to ask. I had noticed, reading comments between others and in other threads, that some want to engage in dialogue for what seems to be an understanding of another point of view, or perhaps for clarification, but really it boils down to an ulterior motive.

As I said before, I wasn’t referring to your OP of this thread, and if you took it that way and I caused unnecessary offense, I apologize. Please forgive me, sir.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I have been unable to read this thread because of it. I started it as I said as a suggestion from someone else as it was off topic in another thread… BTW:curtsey: I am not a sir and I wouldn’t expect you to know that without me telling you.