Thursday, September 09, 2010

Wrangling about the Canon of Scripture with the Society for Orthodox Apologetics

 The always-bizarre Lvka has posted a brief and more or less worthless article at the Society for Orthodox Apologetics.  I asked a question and the far-more-competent DavidW got involved. 

Notice, before we begin, how he discusses the Jews.  Why does he use such language about them?
Also, note how biblically illiterate the man is.  When I say that I don't see how faithful EOx could have eternal life, I mean comments like those found here (wherein Lvka defines his version of the gospel - fearfully damnable!) and also in the following comments where DavidW asks why God would use thus-and-such horrible men to do His work.  Does DavidW even realise he's a sinner in need of a Savior? He might say he does if you ask him directly, but by his comments he denies such a concept.  It's the same idea as he demonstrated not long ago.  I wish he'd learned from it.

Here is my latest comment:

how do we know the name was in the autograph?

We don't KNOW it.  How do we know it wasn't?  We don't.  So the question is kind of worthless.
And I don't consider John 7:53-8:11 inspired Scripture, no.  Nor the longer ending of Mark.  Nor the Comma Johanneum. Incidentally, it's been Protestant scholarship that has detected these things, not EO scholarship. Wonder why that is.


how do you know God wrote it?

Are we back to this "I, the EO theist, will pretend to be an atheist" merry-go-round?  How about you just stay in your own position, I'll stay in mine, and we'll talk, OK?  All this jumping to skeptical positions doesn't do you any good.  How will YOU answer the question?


How/why did God work through them to create a perfect New Testament canon while leaving them in horrible error about nearly everything else?

How?  OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan. 
I know, crazy, right?  It's nuts.  God's a weird dude. 


Your Old Testament canon was decided by a group of Jews who rejected and explicitly cursed Christ

1) Oh, so all Jews of Jesus' time rejected and cursed Christ?  Like Elisabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist, the 11 apostles, Anna, Simeon, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus...
2) Oh, so the OT Canon wasn't known to the Jews until after Christ?  How did He quote from it all the time then?
3) Romans 3:1.
4) They didn't DECIDE it.  God did.
5) The LXX was compiled by...Jews.


why did God choose to work through these Jews who spurned his Incarnation, cursed his Son, and persecuted his people instead of working through the Church he had founded as he did with the creation of the New Testament canon?

1) See above 5 comments.
2) Imagine David at the time of Habakkuk.  "Why did God choose to work through these Babylonians who spurned His temple, razed His holy city, and persecuted His people instead of working through the nation he had founded as He did with the promise to Abraham?  OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan. 
I know, crazy, right?  It's nuts.  God's a weird dude. 


Turnback answer: How do you know who wrote the Gospels?
David:  The unimpeachable Holy Tradition of the Church. In other words, the exact same way that you know; the difference is that I'm willing to be honest about it.


1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?
2) And how do you know that those parts of tradition are big-T Tradition?  We've seen before that your answer is merely a viciously circular appeal to "Tradition", which cashes out to "the modern EOC says so", which doesn't help anyone.  So I love it when you ask these sorts of questions.
3) And it's a strawman of course to think that Christian tradition is totally out of the question for me.  When it comes to naming the human authors, why not look at tradition?  And yes, I have read from others who are familiar with the situation that tradition favors these authors for these books, so, fine, I accept these authors' names as appended to the books, and b/c the names appear on the manuscript copies.  It's not like it's a matter of essential faith!



Peace,
Rhology

26 comments:

Viisaus said...

And for all of David's pretensions, EO heavyweights like John Damascus unequivocally gave their support to the Hebrew canon, centuries after the infallible church had supposedly fixed the EO canon:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/johnofdamascus.html

"Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther.

There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark."

Viisaus said...

Another major EO author, a 9th-century patriarch Nicephorus, comments on the topic:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphaendnotes3.html

"105 These were the divine Scriptures delivered into the canon by the Church and the number of their verses, as follows 1. Genesis has 4300 verses, 2. Exodus 2800, 3. Leviticus 2700, Numbers 3530, 5. Deuteronomy, 3100, 6. Joshua 2100, 7. Judges and Ruth 2050, 8. first and second Kings, 4240, 9. third and fourth Kings 2203, 10. first and second Chronicles 5500, 11. first and second Ezra 5500, 12. Psalms 5100, 13. Proverbs of Solomon 1700, 14. Ecclesiastes 7500, 15. Song of Songs 280, 16. Job 1800, 17. the prophet Isaiah 3800, 18. the prophet Jeremiah 4000, 19. Baruch 700, 20. Ezechiel 4000, 21. Daniel 2200, 22. the twelve prophets 3000. Total of the books of the Old Testament: 22.

These scriptures of the Old Testament are doubtful. 1. Three books of the Maccabees 7300 verses, 2. Wisdom of Solomon 100, 3. Wisdom of the Son of Sirach 2800, 4. Psalms and Songs of Solomon 2100, 5. Esther 350, 6. Judith 1700, 7. Susanna 500, 8. Tobit which is also Tobias, 700

(S. Nicephori Patriarchae CP, Chronographia Brevis, Quae Scripturae Canonicae I, II, PG 1057-1058. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame)."

Lvka said...

his version of the gospel - fearfully damnable!

The fearfully-damnable words of Christ.. :-)

(If you feel that the simple words of the Gospels contradict your own view of 'the Gospel', then I would kindly suggest you correct it, not them..)


EO heavyweights like John of Damascus unequivocally gave their support to the Hebrew canon...

...because they felt that the idea of prayer for the dead contained in O.T. writings not found in the Hebrew canon was incompatible with Orthodoxy? :-\ -- I doubt it.

Rhology said...

Lvka,

Christ spoke words of Gospel...and Law. And Law damns you. Gospel saves you. This is why you're not only clueless but hellbound unless you repent.

And your "prayer for the dead" comment is 100% red herring. Shame on you.

Lvka said...

Christ spoke words of Gospel...and Law. Law damns you.

Too bad He always said to keep the Law (in the way He interpreted it) and never told anyone not to..


And your "prayer for the dead" comment is 100% red herring. Shame on you.

No. It's not.


This is why you're not only clueless but hellbound unless you repent.

Did I ever say that one must not repent, or that there's another way out of hell than through repentance? :-\

Rhology said...

What do you need to repent of if you're perfect? And how's the pursuit of perfection going for you? How close are you? Better hurry - the hour of your death could be anytime. Gotta get perfect NOW.

Lvka said...

Who said I'm perfect?

Rhology said...

Well, you know, Jesus always said to keep the Law (in the way He interpreted it) and never told anyone not to...


So what are you going to do?

Lvka said...

So what are you going to do?

What I can. - Remember the parable of the talents.

Rhology said...

Where does Jesus or the Law say "Do your best"?

I thought the law is "be perfect". So are you perfect?

Lucian said...

Where does Jesus or the Law say "Do your best"?

In the parable I mentioned: we are to multiply the talents God gave us to the limit (5, 2, or 1). What we CAN'T do -NEVER, EVER- is to just *burry* them! - Because doing so would be the shortest, safest, easiest, most-direct, and most-effective way to sure damnation..


I thought the law is "be perfect". So are you perfect?

No. But the way to becoming perfect is to constantly do the most with what we receive from God at any given time.

Rhology said...

Whom do you know who has achieved perfection?

Where does the parable of the talents say that the servants were perfect?

Lvka said...

All the Saints.

The first two servants were rewarded (saved), the third was punished (damned).

Rhology said...

How do you know all the saints were perfect?

And you didn't KNOW them - whom do you KNOW who is perfect?

Do you think that Heaven will be populated with a few hundred people total?

Lucian said...

1) All saints have attained perfection by the grace of God.

It's weird telling me that "I didn't know them", since I grew up with them. (Jesus, Abel, John, Elijah, to name but a few..)

And the ones that I do know, I will not name.

It is not impossible to utterly destroy lust from one's soul, or to fully eliminate anger and rage from one's heart: but the trick is keeping the mind in this state of over-whelming grace for more than just a few hours or a few days. And when even this is done, the soul must keep it meekness by remembering its original state, and not forget that all this was the effect of God's grace and power (which originate in God, and which God only lent or borrowed or shared with him out of love and mercy for him).

2) No, heaven will be populated with very many meek and repentant sinners, who sorrowfully asked God for forgiveness, and did not mock that forgiveness once received, by simply burrying their talents.

John said...

"And I don't consider John 7:53-8:11 inspired Scripture, no. Nor the longer ending of Mark. Nor the Comma Johanneum. Incidentally, it's been Protestant scholarship that has detected these things, not EO scholarship."

"Scholarship" cannot tell you what is inspired scripture. Epic fail for you Rhology. At best it can suggest that John 7:53-8:11 doesn't belong in that book in its original autograph. It doesn't tell you if it was inspired. Oh, and Protestant scholarship didn't discover anything, these issues were well known to the church fathers.

"How? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan. "

Big obfuscation here. For example, the apostles were sinful men, but we assume they knew what they were talking about because of their special relationship with God. But then to assume that those who gave us the canon were just saintly enough to believe about the canon, but just rotten enough to disbelieve about everything else is highly selective and question begging.

"1) Oh, so all Jews of Jesus' time rejected and cursed Christ?"

Assumes what you want to prove that all the Jews of Jesus time accepted your canon.

"2) Oh, so the OT Canon wasn't known to the Jews until after Christ? How did He quote from it all the time then?"

Same again. Assumes the Jews of the time of Christ can be equated with those who chose the Protestant OT canon.

"5) The LXX was compiled by...Jews."

Ah, exactly! Now what since you blew your argument?

"1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?"

We don't rely on provenance as a proof, you do.

"2) And how do you know that those parts of tradition are big-T Tradition? We've seen before that your answer is merely a viciously circular appeal to "Tradition", which cashes out to "the modern EOC says so"

You have to do the same thing. How do you know Hebrews is scripture without appealing to something that is either a viscious circle or something that comes down to you saying so? Arguments that destroy your own citadel do not impress me.

Rhology said...

John,

"Scholarship" cannot tell you what is inspired scripture.

What I meant in context was that the fact that these are later interpolations has been detected thru "scholarship", ie by study of the text and the mss.



Oh, and Protestant scholarship didn't discover anything, these issues were well known to the church fathers.

OK, if that's the case, I retract that comment.



DavidW: How/why did God work through them to create a perfect New Testament canon while leaving them in horrible error about nearly everything else?

Rho: How? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.

John now: the apostles were sinful men, but we assume they knew what they were talking about because of their special relationship with God. But then to assume that those who gave us the canon were just saintly enough to believe about the canon, but just rotten enough to disbelieve about everything else is highly selective and question begging.


Boy, talk about melodrama! "Everything else"... hahahahaha.
Maybe I'm just asking for a little evidence.



DavidW: Your Old Testament canon was decided by a group of Jews who rejected and explicitly cursed Christ

Rho: 1) Oh, so all Jews of Jesus' time rejected and cursed Christ?"

John: Assumes what you want to prove that all the Jews of Jesus time accepted your canon.


Um, that's part of the question at hand. DavidW said it, not me.



Assumes the Jews of the time of Christ can be equated with those who chose the Protestant OT canon.

Nobody CHOSE it. I'm saying that they all RECOGNISED it, else why quote from the OT expecting ppl to recognise it as the Scripture?



"5) The LXX was compiled by...Jews."

Ah, exactly! Now what since you blew your argument?


I have no idea what you could mean.



Rho: Turnback answer: How do you know who wrote the Gospels?

DavidW: The unimpeachable Holy Tradition of the Church. In other words, the exact same way that you know; the difference is that I'm willing to be honest about it.

Rho: "1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?"

John: We don't rely on provenance as a proof, you do.


No, I don't. Maybe if you'd actually read and comprehended this very post, you'd've known that.
So DavidW's question is dead in the water. Thanks!



How do you know Hebrews is scripture without appealing to something that is either a viscious circle or something that comes down to you saying so?

1) How is appealing to God a vicious circle?
2) And there YOU go with the atheistic arguments! We're supposed to agree that Hebrews is Scr. Either you do or you don't. Pick your position and argue from it; don't argue like an atheist, as if your own position were incapable of making a dent in mine. If that's as highly as you think of your own position, who am I to argue?

John said...

"What I meant in context was that the fact that these are later interpolations has been detected thru "scholarship","

Err, no. You said that you don't consider them inspired scripture, and that Protestant scholarship "detected" this. Which is of course, bogus.

"Boy, talk about melodrama! "Everything else"... hahahahaha.
Maybe I'm just asking for a little evidence. "

Back to your arguments about disagreements in the early church. Except that by pushing this view, and ignoring the developing consensus, you undermine your own rule of faith. The 2nd century church was unsure if 2 Peter was legit. The later church decided to go with the view it is legit. Pure historical scholarship can't make what was uncertain in the 2nd century to be certain in the 10th or 20th century. But faith in the leading of the Spirit can. But by undermining this process with this stuff, you stab your own position.

"DavidW said it, not me."

The thead is hard to follow, but it seems to me he would be talking about the post-NT Jews, not the Jews around the time of Jesus. You seem to be attempting to conflate the two.

"Nobody CHOSE it."

Of course they chose it. Everybody chooses what books they want to follow, rightly or wrongly.

"I'm saying that they all RECOGNISED it, else why quote from the OT expecting ppl to recognise it as the Scripture?"

So, you wouldn't quote scripture at an atheist in the hope and desire they recognise it as scripture, even though probably some or many of them won't? Your assumptions are very suspect.

"I have no idea what you could mean."

You admit the LXX with its canon was compiled by Jews, but you assume your favourite Jews are the only right ones.

"No, I don't."

Well, when you're not appealing to provenance you are appealing to something like burning in the bosom. And that is neither a foundation from which you can attack another rule of faith.

"1) How is appealing to God a vicious circle?"

How is appealing to what you claim God instituted more or less of a viscious circle than us appealing to what we claim God instituted?

"2) And there YOU go with the atheistic arguments! "

Its not atheistic to hold you to consistency. According to your ludicrious argument, he who has the smallest faith tradition wins. If someone says only 3 John is scripture, and you try and hold them to some kind of consistency in defending that notion by asking how they accept the evidence for it whilst rejecting the arguments for the other books, they get to accuse you of atheistic arguments!

John said...

"What I meant in context was that the fact that these are later interpolations has been detected thru "scholarship","

Err, no. You said that you don't consider them inspired scripture, and that Protestant scholarship "detected" this. Which is of course, bogus.

"Boy, talk about melodrama! "Everything else"... hahahahaha.
Maybe I'm just asking for a little evidence. "

Back to your arguments about disagreements in the early church. Except that by pushing this view, and ignoring the developing consensus, you undermine your own rule of faith. The 2nd century church was unsure if 2 Peter was legit. The later church decided to go with the view it is legit. Pure historical scholarship can't make what was uncertain in the 2nd century to be certain in the 10th or 20th century. But faith in the leading of the Spirit can. But by undermining this process with this stuff, you stab your own position.

"DavidW said it, not me."

The thead is hard to follow, but it seems to me he would be talking about the post-NT Jews, not the Jews around the time of Jesus. You seem to be attempting to conflate the two.

"Nobody CHOSE it."

Of course they chose it. Everybody chooses what books they want to follow, rightly or wrongly.

"I'm saying that they all RECOGNISED it, else why quote from the OT expecting ppl to recognise it as the Scripture?"

So, you wouldn't quote scripture at an atheist in the hope and desire they recognise it as scripture, even though probably some or many of them won't? Your assumptions are very suspect.

"I have no idea what you could mean."

You admit the LXX with its canon was compiled by Jews, but you assume your favourite Jews are the only right ones.

"No, I don't."

Well, when you're not appealing to provenance you are appealing to something like burning in the bosom. And that is neither a foundation from which you can attack another rule of faith.

"1) How is appealing to God a vicious circle?"

How is appealing to what you claim God instituted more or less of a viscious circle than us appealing to what we claim God instituted?

"2) And there YOU go with the atheistic arguments! "

Its not atheistic to hold you to consistency. According to your ludicrious argument, he who has the smallest faith tradition wins. If someone says only 3 John is scripture, and you try and hold them to some kind of consistency in defending that notion by asking how they accept the evidence for it whilst rejecting the arguments for the other books, they get to accuse you of atheistic arguments!

John said...

" in context was that the fact that these are later interpolations has been detected thru "scholarship","

Err, no. You said that you don't consider them inspired scripture, and that Protestant scholarship "detected" this. Which is of course, bogus.

"Boy, talk about melodrama! "Everything else"... hahahahaha.
Maybe I'm just asking for a little evidence. "

Back to your arguments about disagreements in the early church. Except that by pushing this view, and ignoring the developing consensus, you undermine your own rule of faith. The 2nd century church was unsure if 2 Peter was legit. The later church decided to go with the view it is legit. Pure historical scholarship can't make what was uncertain in the 2nd century to be certain in the 10th or 20th century. But faith in the leading of the Spirit can. But by undermining this process with this stuff, you stab your own position.

"DavidW said it, not me."

The thread is hard to follow, but it seems to me he would be talking about the post-NT Jews, not the Jews around the time of Jesus. You seem to be attempting to conflate the two.

"Nobody CHOSE it."

Of course they chose it. Everybody chooses what books they want to follow, rightly or wrongly.

"I'm saying that they all RECOGNISED it, else why quote from the OT expecting ppl to recognise it as the Scripture?"

So, you wouldn't quote scripture at an atheist in the hope and desire they recognise it as scripture, even though probably some or many of them won't? Your assumptions are very suspect.

"I have no idea what you could mean."

You admit the LXX with its canon was compiled by Jews, but you assume your favourite Jews are the only right ones.

"No, I don't."

Well, when you're not appealing to provenance you are appealing to something like burning in the bosom. And that is neither a foundation from which you can attack another rule of faith.

"1) How is appealing to God a vicious circle?"

How is appealing to what you claim God instituted more or less of a viscious circle than us appealing to what we claim God instituted?

"2) And there YOU go with the atheistic arguments! "

Its not atheistic to hold you to consistency. According to your ludicrious argument, he who has the smallest faith tradition wins. If someone says only 3 John is scripture, and you try and hold them to some kind of consistency in defending that notion by asking how they accept the evidence for it whilst rejecting the arguments for the other books, they get to accuse you of atheistic arguments!

John said...

" in context was that the fact that these are later interpolations has been detected thru "scholarship","

Err, no. You said that you don't consider them inspired scripture, and that Protestant scholarship "detected" this. Which is of course, bogus.

"Boy, talk about melodrama! "Everything else"... hahahahaha.
Maybe I'm just asking for a little evidence. "

Back to your arguments about disagreements in the early church. Except that by pushing this view, and ignoring the developing consensus, you undermine your own rule of faith. The 2nd century church was unsure if 2 Peter was legit. The later church decided to go with the view it is legit. Pure historical scholarship can't make what was uncertain in the 2nd century to be certain in the 10th or 20th century. But faith in the leading of the Spirit can. But by undermining this process with this stuff, you stab your own position.

"DavidW said it, not me."

The thread is hard to follow, but it seems to me he would be talking about the post-NT Jews, not the Jews around the time of Jesus. You seem to be attempting to conflate the two.

"Nobody CHOSE it."

Of course they chose it. Everybody chooses what books they want to follow, rightly or wrongly.

John said...

"I'm saying that they all RECOGNISED it, else why quote from the OT expecting ppl to recognise it as the Scripture?"

So, you wouldn't quote scripture at an atheist in the hope and desire they recognise it as scripture, even though probably some or many of them won't? Your assumptions are very suspect.

"I have no idea what you could mean."

You admit the LXX with its canon was compiled by Jews, but you assume your favourite Jews are the only right ones.

"No, I don't."

Well, when you're not appealing to provenance you are appealing to something like burning in the bosom. And that is neither a foundation from which you can attack another rule of faith.

"1) How is appealing to God a vicious circle?"

How is appealing to what you claim God instituted more or less of a viscious circle than us appealing to what we claim God instituted?

"2) And there YOU go with the atheistic arguments! "

Its not atheistic to hold you to consistency. According to your ludicrious argument, he who has the smallest faith tradition wins. If someone says only 3 John is scripture, and you try and hold them to some kind of consistency in defending that notion by asking how they accept the evidence for it whilst rejecting the arguments for the other books, they get to accuse you of atheistic arguments!

Rhology said...

You said that you don't consider them inspired scripture, and that Protestant scholarship "detected" this.

What I meant in context was that the fact that these are later interpolations has been detected thru "scholarship".
I think I know what I meant better than you do.


. Except that by pushing this view, and ignoring the developing consensus, you undermine your own rule of faith.

Scripture alone? Do tell how!



The 2nd century church was unsure if 2 Peter was legit.

OK. And that matters...how?



you wouldn't quote scripture at an atheist in the hope and desire they recognise it as scripture

And quoting Scr to an atheist is analogous to a believing Jew at the time of Christ...how?



You admit the LXX with its canon was compiled by Jews, but you assume your favourite Jews are the only right ones.

I'd just ask you for evidence of the existence of an important group of others. And why Jesus quoted the OT.



Well, when you're not appealing to provenance you are appealing to something like burning in the bosom.

I am? Wow, where? I assume you'll easily be able to quote me.



John: How do you know Hebrews is scripture without appealing to something that is either a viscious circle or something that comes down to you saying so?
Me: 1) How is appealing to God a vicious circle?
How is appealing to what you claim God instituted more or less of a viscious circle than us appealing to what we claim God instituted?

Notice how that doesn't answer the question in context. How do YOU know Hebrews is Scr? It comes back to "the church told me so". And you trust the church...b/c you trust the church.
See, I trust GOD. You trust THE CHURCH. That's the difference. I recognise the church is full of sinners, whereas you apparently think being sinful is no big deal.



"2) And there YOU go with the atheistic arguments! "

Its not atheistic to hold you to consistency


So you jump to inconsistency to hold me to consistency? How does that work?

John said...

"I think I know what I meant better than you do."

I only know what you say, not what you "meant".

"Scripture alone? Do tell how!"

Which scriptures? Which writings? Tell us how you know.

"OK. And that matters...how?"

I want to know how you can have increased certainty now compared to the early church.

"And quoting Scr to an atheist is analogous to a believing Jew at the time of Christ...how?"

If I can quote scripture to an atheist, a Mormon, and a Christian and a Jew, all with the aim of spreading the truth, it hardly proves that they all share my views on the canon.

"I'd just ask you for evidence of the existence of an important group of others."

Others? First you have to prove there is actually a group which agrees with your canon, before you can even breath the word "others". Still waiting for that.

"And why Jesus quoted the OT. "

So if I quote the OT to a Jew and a Mormon, it means they agree with my canon? Give it up.

" I assume you'll easily be able to quote me. "

You're not? Tell us what you are appealing to then. Your canon disagrees with mine, what do you appeal to?

"And you trust the church...b/c you trust the church.
See, I trust GOD. You trust THE CHURCH. That's the difference. I recognise the church is full of sinners, whereas you apparently think being sinful is no big deal. "

Well hang on now, I trust some sinners called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to transmit to me what Jesus/God said. As do you. I also trust sinners who copied said manuscripts and kept the message intact. I also trust sinners to correctly come to conclusions about which books are inspired by God. I also trust translators to translate it into English, and I trust writers of Greek lexicons to correctly convey nuances of original language. Then I trust historians to as best they can explain historical context to give meaning to scripture in historical grammatical method. I also trust sinners to convey correct interpretation of said message. Lots of sinners involved on both sides here. Neither of us has a direct hotline to God in our rule of faith.

"So you jump to inconsistency to hold me to consistency? How does that work?"

It's not inconsistency to point out that your arguments don't work against certain world views, even if those world views are not my own. Only the position that works against all world views wins.

John said...

"I think I know what I meant better than you do."

I only know what you say, not what you "meant".

"Scripture alone? Do tell how!"

Which scriptures? Which writings? Tell us how you know.

"OK. And that matters...how?"

I want to know how you can have increased certainty now compared to the early church.

"And quoting Scr to an atheist is analogous to a believing Jew at the time of Christ...how?"

If I can quote scripture to an atheist, a Mormon, and a Christian and a Jew, all with the aim of spreading the truth, it hardly proves that they all share my views on the canon.

"I'd just ask you for evidence of the existence of an important group of others."

Others? First you have to prove there is actually a group which agrees with your canon, before you can even breath the word "others". Still waiting for that.

"And why Jesus quoted the OT. "

So if I quote the OT to a Jew and a Mormon, it means they agree with my canon? Give it up.

John said...

" I assume you'll easily be able to quote me. "

You're not? Tell us what you are appealing to then. Your canon disagrees with mine, what do you appeal to?

"And you trust the church...b/c you trust the church.
See, I trust GOD. You trust THE CHURCH. That's the difference. I recognise the church is full of sinners, whereas you apparently think being sinful is no big deal. "

Well hang on now, I trust some sinners called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to transmit to me what Jesus/God said. As do you. I also trust sinners who copied said manuscripts and kept the message intact. I also trust sinners to correctly come to conclusions about which books are inspired by God. I also trust translators to translate it into English, and I trust writers of Greek lexicons to correctly convey nuances of original language. Then I trust historians to as best they can explain historical context to give meaning to scripture in historical grammatical method. I also trust sinners to convey correct interpretation of said message. Lots of sinners involved on both sides here. Neither of us has a direct hotline to God in our rule of faith.

"So you jump to inconsistency to hold me to consistency? How does that work?"

It's not inconsistency to point out that your arguments don't work against certain world views, even if those world views are not my own. Only the position that works against all world views wins.