Before I address some canonical issues Dave Armstrong raised in his recent responses to me, I want to ask him for clarification on something he said. I'm also interested in any information other readers might be able to provide.
As I explained in an article on the canon last year, it's common for people to make false claims about what the Council of Nicaea supposedly did with regard to the canon. And Dave writes:
"The Council of Nicaea questioned the inclusion in the NT of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude."
What is he referring to?
I've asked Dave the same question (linking back to this post). My guess would be that he believes that Eusebius' Church History, Book 3, Chapter 25, Paragraph 3, better represents Nicaea than Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter does.
ReplyDeleteEusebius wrote (not about Nicaea, but simply in general): "Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." (Eusebius, Church History 3:25:3)
Of course, there is actually nothing (at least nothing of which I'm aware) that suggests that there was actually any question at Nicaea on this issue.
Excellent question, Jason and Turretinfan!
ReplyDeleteDon't give up! You both are giving excellent critiques of Dave's articles.
I hope you have time to deal with all his main points; even if he keeps requiring someone respond to almost every line; and he keeps whining about us not responding to every word and spends lots of time counting up percentages and words!
He complains that not every line is addressed and he complains that there are too many people responding to his posts. If he stopped complaining, I'd be shocked.
ReplyDeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteAs I said above and in another recent thread, I'll continue responding to him. I work a full-time job, one that doesn't have any close relationship to the sort of work I do for Triablogue, and I currently have mandatory overtime for that job. But I'll be replying to more of Dave's material as I have the time to do so.
Dave Armstrong has acknowledged that he doesn't have evidence to support his claim about Nicaea and has revised his article accordingly. See the comments section of the thread at Dave's blog linked above.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong has acknowledged that he doesn't have evidence to support his claim about Nicaea and has revised his article accordingly. See the comments section of the thread at Dave's blog linked above.
LOL ... how ironic!! Wasn't it Dave crowing about how he "copiously documents everythng" and now you not only have to ask him for documentation, but then he doesn't have any!! ROFLOL!!
Thanks Jason!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your work. I love your "catholic, but not Roman Catholic" series you did years ago.
Ronnie:
DA said that he based it on something Norman Geisler wrote, but at least he has corrected this now.
Golly, you guys are a bunch of bullies, maybe school yard, maybe back yard, maybe junk yard, but bullies, bullies, bullies.
ReplyDeleteYou just are ganging up on poor DA!
Now, I suppose you qualify for being a gang of bullies.
What's your call sign and colors?
They just opened up a Khol's in my area??
Jason said:
ReplyDelete---
I work a full-time job, one that doesn't have any close relationship to the sort of work I do for Triablogue, and I currently have mandatory overtime for that job.
---
Hey, that's exactly the boat I was in from October through the first week of January. We just finished up our mandatory overtime part, though. I will pray you keep your sanity :-D
Thanks, Peter. Our worst period of mandatory overtime is usually early in the year. It’s unpredictable how long it will last. It could be over two weeks from now, or it might last a few more months.
ReplyDelete