tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7297039663100894834..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Fahrenheit 451Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9047069679585577352014-12-01T01:32:44.713-05:002014-12-01T01:32:44.713-05:00John:
"It doesn't say that. All it says...John:<br /><br /> "It doesn't say that. All it says is that it was written as one contribution towards belief. It doesn't say that this alone is enough. That's an assumption of yours, not found in the text."<br /><br />That's one reason why Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are impious. They don't care what the word of God says. They only care what their denomination says. <br /><br />Read this:<br /><br />"30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn 20:30-31)."<br /><br />It specifically says that believing John's record is sufficient to know that Jesus is the divine messiah, and have eternal life in his name. It makes the explicit point that you don't need additional information for that purpose.<br /><br />"When Paul refers to the 500 believers still alive, one would assume he is offering them as living support for this contention. Strange he would bother with living witnesses if just reading one claim was certainly enough."<br /><br />You confuse information with corroboration. Living witnesses don't add to the content of Paul's exposition. They don't supplement the information. <br /><br />Rather, that's for the benefit of skeptical Corinthians. Remember that, in context, Paul is dealing with Corinthians who doubt the physical resurrection. That's why he appeals to eyewitnesses. <br /><br />And, no, they weren't all still alive. <br /><br />"Not really, in as much as the full liturgical calendar is fairly extensive in its reading schedule."<br /><br />I see. Is the Book of Revelation in the Orthodox lectionary? Does it include the entire OT? <br /><br />"Quite possibly it did."<br /><br />Which is a euphemistic admission that you don't know what you're talking about.<br /><br />"Without the community they would be buried in fragments in middle east sands."<br /><br />Now you're doing a bait-n-switch. Having lost the argument on the production of Scripture, you shift to the preservation of Scripture. Two different issues. You're arguing in bad faith.<br /><br />"It's no less essential though, and no less fundamental to the end result of it being a rule of faith in the church."<br /><br />There's no logic to that assertion. Listing it is simply an acknowledge of what it is. Listing it doesn't change what it is. <br /><br />"Did Paul authorise his writings?"<br /><br />God did. <br /><br />"Can Paul err? Can scripture err?"<br /><br />According to Fr. Paul Tarazi, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at St Vladimir's Seminary, the answer is yes.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25553818778442941542014-11-26T11:35:41.168-05:002014-11-26T11:35:41.168-05:00@John
"It doesn't say that. All it says ...@John<br /><br />"It doesn't say that. All it says is that it was written as one contribution towards belief. It doesn't say that this alone is enough. That's an assumption of yours, not found in the text."<br /><br />Cite where a NT author says his work isn't sufficient in the respect you mention.<br /><br />For example, see Luke 1:1-4: <br /><br />"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."<br /><br />Luke assumes what he has written will provide "certainty concerning the things you [Theophilus] have been taught."<br /><br />"When Paul refers to the 500 believers still alive, one would assume he is offering them as living support for this contention. Strange he would bother with living witnesses if just reading one claim was certainly enough."<br /><br />For one thing, these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.<br /><br />"Not really, in as much as the full liturgical calendar is fairly extensive in its reading schedule."<br /><br />Another vague response from you. As such, it doesn't answer Steve's question. Just because the liturgical calendar is "extensive in its reading schedule" doesn't necessarily mean the liturgy isn't "selective" in its use of Scripture.<br /><br />"That's a rather limited view. Without the community they would be buried in fragments in middle east sands."<br /><br />Don't be daft. The question at issue is whether a community of Christians created the Bible. Not about various (Christian) communities preserving the Bible throughout history.<br /><br />"The bible is distinguished from other other things in so far as its role in the community."<br /><br />Another vague statement from you which could mean a number of different things.<br /><br />"Did Paul authorise his writings?"<br /><br />This could be given over to equivocation, for "authorize" may mean different things even here. If you want an answer, you'll have to specify what you mean by "authorize."<br /><br />"Where is Paul's authority in relation to scripture?"<br /><br />Again, try to be less vague. Spell out what you mean (e.g. are you referring to Paul's apostolic authority?). <br /><br />But generally speaking, I'd think "Paul's authority" is subordinate to Scripture.<br /><br />"Can Paul err?"<br /><br />Yes, just like all humans "can" err.<br /><br />"Can scripture err?"<br /><br />No, but copyists can, for instance.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7993125384651713212014-11-26T05:36:35.086-05:002014-11-26T05:36:35.086-05:00"Rather, the assurance they proffer is predic..."Rather, the assurance they proffer is predicated on their own writings, as is."<br /><br />It doesn't say that. All it says is that it was written as one contribution towards belief. It doesn't say that this alone is enough. That's an assumption of yours, not found in the text.<br /><br />When Paul refers to the 500 believers still alive, one would assume he is offering them as living support for this contention. Strange he would bother with living witnesses if just reading one claim was certainly enough.<br /><br />"Moreover, doesn't the liturgy make very selective use of Scripture?"<br /><br />Not really, in as much as the full liturgical calendar is fairly extensive in its reading schedule.<br /><br />"Did the OT canon originally refer to those, and only those, texts used liturgically?"<br /><br />Quite possibly it did.<br /><br />"The fact that Bible writers were members of a covenant community doesn't make the books themselves a communal product."<br /><br />That's a rather limited view. Without the community they would be buried in fragments in middle east sands. No doubt God inspired many things that we now don't have. The bible is distinguished from other other things in so far as its role in the community.<br /><br />"But if, say, the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, then listing it is secondary. "<br /><br />It's no less essential though, and no less fundamental to the end result of it being a rule of faith in the church.<br /><br />"vi) To authorize something, the authority must be in a position superior to what is authorized. "<br /><br />Really. Did Paul authorise his writings? Where is Paul's authority in relation to scripture? Can Paul err? Can scripture err?<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37008703286482272472014-11-25T20:53:32.045-05:002014-11-25T20:53:32.045-05:00My main contention was that if Melito of Sardis, O...My main contention was that if Melito of Sardis, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Athansius, and others could enumerate the books of Scripture without "infallible" pronouncements from Rome for hundreds of years after inscripturation, then in what sense did the RCC "give us the Bible"? This may be rudimentary questioning, but I would like to see it answered nonetheless.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21739758885298973612014-11-25T15:53:40.951-05:002014-11-25T15:53:40.951-05:00Actually, the official narrative of Trent is in co...Actually, the official narrative of Trent is in conflict with what current RC scholars/theologians teach. In fact, Vatican II redefines tradition, contrary to how Tent and Vatican I define it. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61390880346346903012014-11-25T15:29:26.047-05:002014-11-25T15:29:26.047-05:00I was paraphrasing someone else's view not min...I was paraphrasing someone else's view not mine mind you. Anyways what do current RC scholars/theologians teach about the history of the Bible? Is Guy's view the official dogmatic position of Rome? Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17686738325565738419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49755431168755034562014-11-25T13:19:57.922-05:002014-11-25T13:19:57.922-05:00I disagree.
i) Although ancient lectionaries bear...I disagree.<br /><br />i) Although ancient lectionaries bear witness to what the early church considered to be Scripture, lectionaries are not the only line of evidence for the canon. Lectionaries included non-canonical writings. Moreover, doesn't the liturgy make very selective use of Scripture? <br /><br />ii) Is it your position that synagogues used all the OT writings liturgically? Did the OT canon originally refer to those, and only those, texts used liturgically? <br /><br />iii) There's an ambiguity about "developing" the canon. Do you mean a developing recognition of the canon? We need to distinguish the prior history of the canonical books (i.e. their composition) from the subsequent history of reception. <br /><br />Likewise, there's a distinction between the history of publication and/or local reception and a later process of canonization, involving the entire Bible for the entire church. <br /><br />iv) No, "the Church" did not created the books of the Bible. That's fatally equivocal. The fact that Bible writers were members of a covenant community doesn't make the books themselves a communal product. The books were created by God inspiring select individuals. <br /><br />v) Framing the issue in terms of a "list" or table of contents is superficial and misleading. The Bible is, among other things, a collection of collections. Smaller collections within larger collections.<br /><br />For instance, Luke-Acts is a two-part collection. The Pentateuch is a five-part collection. The Pauline epistles constitute a collection that's self-selected by common authorship. I could give other examples. <br /><br />it's not a list or table of contents that collects them or puts them together for the first time. Rather, that's how they are organically interrelated. <br /><br />It's convenient for the church to create editions of the Bible with a table of contents. It's convenient for the church to list the books of the Bible. But if, say, the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, then listing it is secondary. <br /><br />Indeed, the Gospel of John comes with a title. And there's no particular reason to think it ever circulated without a title. <br /><br />vi) To authorize something, the authority must be in a position superior to what is authorized. <br /><br />The church has the authority to teach whatever is true. The church has the authority to produce a true list of the canon.<br /><br />Mind you, it doesn't require authority to say what's true. Truth is its own authority. <br /><br />There's confirmatory evidence for the canon. That, however, is not the same thing as authority. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9127145462136022222014-11-25T09:31:53.792-05:002014-11-25T09:31:53.792-05:00Would you guys agree with this?
Canon originally ...Would you guys agree with this?<br /><br />Canon originally referred to those texts used as scripture liturgically. In this sense, the Church created and received and developed the canon as she developed her liturgy.<br /><br />As meaning those books that are truly inspired by God, the Church did create those books themselves, insofar as the human authors were members of either the Jewish nation (Old Testament) or the Church (New Testament). This is just manifest history. They derive their authority, however, from God, not their human authors. So the Church most certainly had a hand in creating the Bible, but the authority in it is because God is the author.<br /><br />As far as creating a list of such inspired books. Again, yes the Church created that list. It didn't fall out of the sky. In creating it, it recognized the authority of these texts. It is the same authority from which the Church gets her authority, and the Church's authority is what confirms the authenticity of Scripture. The proximate rule of Faith is the Church, and remote rule is scripture and tradition. The Church's authority extends as guardian, keeper, and presented of the remote rule. This means, while intrinsically the authority is because God is the author, we recognize that authority in those texts because His Church has recognized such, imbued by His authority as well.<br /><br />Sort of like how PSA signs off on the authenticity of Jackie Robinson's signature on a baseball. Its authenticity does not derive from PSA, but PSA has the authority (through expertise) to examine a signature and determine its actual author.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17686738325565738419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61072545323429001542014-11-24T18:07:39.811-05:002014-11-24T18:07:39.811-05:00Here's a post that provides some examples of p...<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/means-of-identifying-new-testament.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a post that provides some examples of patristic Christians identifying individual books of scripture and a canon of scripture without any infallible ruling from Roman Catholicism or any other denomination. The early Christians explicitly and frequently referred to how they came to believe in scripture and form a canon by means like what Steve has argued for, <i>not</i> what Guy has argued for.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88635205364135041742014-11-24T14:19:54.839-05:002014-11-24T14:19:54.839-05:00"So I guess EA should talk to Küng about papa...<b>"So I guess EA should talk to Küng about papal infallibility. Thanks for the recommendation, Guy!"</b><br /><br />Nothing says reassurance like getting a fallible opinion regarding infallibility. I guess that would be ignorant regress rather than infinite regress.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.com