apothanein kerdos Posted February 16, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 16, 2007 What exactly do you see in GThomas which is so incompatible with a second-century or earlier date? I have already given you my reasons. Style, philosophical stance, Hebrew vs Greek thinking, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansasdad Posted February 16, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The ecclesiastical community held (for the most part, though compromises were made) and canonized the scriptures in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Widespread acceptance and use in the church continued until the Reformation- The Council at Trent reaffirmed the church Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansasdad Posted February 16, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted February 16, 2007 OH I just can't help myself Let me see if I am understanding the original question a little better. What you are wondering about is, how can a "Christian" accept the canon of the bible as being legit if they do not accept Apostolic Tradition as the authority that makes them legit. If you throw out Apostolic Tradition then how was one book chosen over another, by what criteria? Is that accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatsoff Posted February 16, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/09/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 OH I just can't help myself Let me see if I am understanding the original question a little better. What you are wondering about is, how can a "Christian" accept the canon of the bible as being legit if they do not accept Apostolic Tradition as the authority that makes them legit. If you throw out Apostolic Tradition then how was one book chosen over another, by what criteria? Is that accurate? That's part of it, yes. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansasdad Posted February 17, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted February 17, 2007 OH I just can't help myself Let me see if I am understanding the original question a little better. What you are wondering about is, how can a "Christian" accept the canon of the bible as being legit if they do not accept Apostolic Tradition as the authority that makes them legit. If you throw out Apostolic Tradition then how was one book chosen over another, by what criteria? Is that accurate? That's part of it, yes. What are your thoughts? They can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted February 17, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I'm sorry, but AK's response contained a slew of falsehoods, none of which seem to have been based on church councils. And those councils were certainly not composed of eyewitnesses to the original texts. I'm not sure what kind of "sources" you expect me to produce. I've gone into great detail refuting his statements. If you need clarification on something, please be more specific. GOOD DODGE!!! (But you're still caught.....) First, a few of AK's claims are open to discussion in scholarly circles, but no serious scholar would say his response contained a 'slew of falsehoods' my dear fellow. Please try to be somewhat measured in your speech. Second, no one claimed the Councils were 'eyewitnesses to the original texts;' do pay attention old boy. What we do have is the writings of the Apostolic Fathers themselves, prior to the Councils, who were eyewitnesses to the original texts, AND THEIR AUTHORS! They are quite a valuable tool, and through them we find the citing of passages in at least ALMOST every New Testament book, and even some ancient legends no longer believed, BUT NOT A SINGE REFERENCE TO ANY OF THE SO-CALLED 'NEW TESTAMENT PSUEDOPIGRAPHA.' This would seem a very powerful argument againt those books, and the Councils obviously thought so too. You never went into 'great detail refuting his statements,' as you claim. You gave an entirely unsubstantiated statement that AK's material was all wrong. Simply positing an idea does not make it so, good Sir, nor does that count as 'great detail.' I'm afraid I would have had to recommend some remedial courses in Approaches to Epistimology, if you had ever been one of my students. Having understood these courses, you would then know 'what kind of "sources" to produce.' You would also know that the sorts of sources which could back up your point of view in this discussion are sparse indeed! The very best sources available for including any of the psuedopigraphical literature in the New Testament, are either A: 'scholars' no one but National Enquirer takes seriously, or B: Popular fiction. That sounds like a rather shabby platform from which to shout against 2,000 years of clear scholarship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatsoff Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/09/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 18, 2007 GOOD DODGE!!! (But you're still caught.....) First, a few of AK's claims are open to discussion in scholarly circles, but no serious scholar would say his response contained a 'slew of falsehoods' my dear fellow. Please try to be somewhat measured in your speech. I stand by it. I pointed out his earliest misstatements in post #4. As I said before, if you have any specific grievance, please point it out. I would be glad to walk you through the evidence, so long as our focus is sufficiently narrow (I haven't the time for a broader scope). Second, no one claimed the Councils were 'eyewitnesses to the original texts;' do pay attention old boy. ...what the Church Fathers themselves tell us was discussed at the Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonean Councils. If you have other eye-witness sources... This reads as if you're describing the post-Nicene church fathers as eyewitnesses. I would be careful not to make jabs like "do pay attention" when you're the one who caused the confusion. What we do have is the writings of the Apostolic Fathers themselves, prior to the Councils, who were eyewitnesses to the original texts, AND THEIR AUTHORS! They are quite a valuable tool, and through them we find the citing of passages in at least ALMOST every New Testament book, and even some ancient legends no longer believed, BUT NOT A SINGE REFERENCE TO ANY OF THE SO-CALLED 'NEW TESTAMENT PSUEDOPIGRAPHA.' This would seem a very powerful argument againt those books, and the Councils obviously thought so too. I'm sure this would be very great evidence indeed if it were true. Unfortunately, none of the church fathers are known to have been eyewitnesses to the original texts or their authors. You never went into 'great detail refuting his statements,' as you claim. You gave an entirely unsubstantiated statement that AK's material was all wrong. Simply positing an idea does not make it so, good Sir, nor does that count as 'great detail.' I'm afraid I would have had to recommend some remedial courses in Approaches to Epistimology, if you had ever been one of my students. Having understood these courses, you would then know 'what kind of "sources" to produce.' You would also know that the sorts of sources which could back up your point of view in this discussion are sparse indeed! Like I asked before, what sources do you need? What claims do you demand be backed up with evidence? Most of what I've talked about should be common enough knowledge that you can verify it all for yourself using Google. I've already provided a few specific points of evidence in response to AK. Maybe you can start there. The very best sources available for including any of the psuedopigraphical literature in the New Testament, are either A: 'scholars' no one but National Enquirer takes seriously, or B: Popular fiction. That depends on what you want the New Testament to be. That sounds like a rather shabby platform from which to shout against 2,000 years of clear scholarship. I'd be surprised if more than a decade of work went into codifying the New Testament. And I wouldn't call that work "scholarship." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSLewis Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 828 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/28/1980 Share Posted February 18, 2007 "common enough knowledge that you can verify it all for yourself using Google" "I'd be surprised if more than a decade of work went into codifying the New Testament. And I wouldn't call that work "scholarship."" You know what I wouldn't call "scholarship" - your blanketed replies that offer no proof, maybe I am not as trusting in you as I am in the large numbers of historians that contradict your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted February 18, 2007 "common enough knowledge that you can verify it all for yourself using Google" "I'd be surprised if more than a decade of work went into codifying the New Testament. And I wouldn't call that work "scholarship."" You know what I wouldn't call "scholarship" - your blanketed replies that offer no proof, maybe I am not as trusting in you as I am in the large numbers of historians that contradict your claims. No. the boy is just an over-reaching juvenile in some game of pretense, at which he isn't very good. I'm getting to an age where I no longer graciously tolerate such useless tom-foolery. It is EXACTLY because Paul got in discussions with persons of this same sort of base calibre, that he finally just wrote: "He that is ignorant, let him remain ignorant still!" I see no longer see any possibility of a fruitful discussion with this phony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 No. the boy is just an over-reaching juvenile in some game of pretense, at which he isn't very good. I'm getting to an age where I no longer graciously tolerate such useless tom-foolery. It is EXACTLY because Paul got in discussions with persons of this same sort of base calibre, that he finally just wrote: "He that is ignorant, let him remain ignorant still!" I see no longer see any possibility of a fruitful discussion with this phony. But, But, But Brothers!!!!! While you were gently chastising him, you were also instructing me! Never know who those Godly little BB's gonna strike! Seriously though, I've enjoyed this little rascal's tissy-fits because I've so enjoyed learning a thing or two from my brothers. I could hazard a guess that more of the learning at Worthy goes on by the drive-by-reader then by the poster? Of course, I do learn when I also look up passages in The Bible. Thank you all again for a classroom session on the wonderful Gospels and Epistles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts