On this day in 1977, one of the best-documented paranormal cases of modern times began, a poltergeist in England. The case involves a quadruple-digit number of incidents spanning a few decades, with dozens of known witnesses, including police officers, reporters, and individuals who had been skeptical prior to what they witnessed. I've discussed the case in depth in the past, and you can access a collection of my posts here. Those who read my initial posts may want to check the comments sections of the threads, since I've posted some updates since the time when the original posts went up.
If you don't have much familiarity with the Enfield Poltergeist, start with this December 26, 1978 radio documentary that aired on BBC Radio. It's hosted by Rosalind Morris, a BBC reporter who investigated the case and witnessed some of the phenomena. The documentary is about forty minutes long and includes interviews with a lot of the eyewitnesses. During the first few minutes, for example, you'll hear from one of the family's neighbors, Vic Nottingham, discussing how the poltergeist's knocking followed him as he walked through the house and occurred in each room upstairs (apparently simultaneously) when he and two other men were there. Later in the program, Rosalind Morris and John Hasted refer to videos of the voice phenomena, though a video from Stewart Lamont is the only one I'm aware of that's available to the general public today. (Lamont's video includes both the voice phenomena and some knocking.) The documentary includes a lot of valuable information and is well worth listening to.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
The gates of hell shall not prevail
I will comment on the Peter Williams webinar:
1. One issue is whether his exposition is representative of contemporary Catholic theology. Like so many Catholic apologists, Williams is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary.
What we're getting from him is the usual version of Catholicism presented by lay Catholic apologists. An idealized, retro version of Catholicism. A version of Catholicism that's well to the right of mainstream Catholic scholarship (e.g. Bible scholars, church historians). Well to the right of the contemporary hierarchy.
2. He's concerned with definitions, such as defining the sufficiency of Scripture. Up to a point, there's value in that. But should that be the starting-point?
To begin with, you can defend the content of Protestant theology without having to defend all the classic formulations. Suppose "sufficiency" isn't the best word to capture the principle. So what? It's unlikely that a single word will be adequate to represent a complex concept. Moreover, it should be possible to express an idea using more than one particular word. Just because the issue is traditionally framed in terms of "sufficiency" doesn't mean we have to use that particular word to expound and defend sola Scriptura.
3. Apropos (2), when Protestants speak of sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture, what does Scripture represent? From a Protestant perspective, "Scripture" (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God's public, propositional revelation. By "public", I mean a revelation that's normative at every time and place–unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation. This is a somewhat roughhewn definition. It could be further refined, but I think it's adequate for immediate purposes.
3. This, in turn, goes to the burden of proof. Is the onus on Protestants to directly prove the sufficiency of Scripture? Likewise, must Protestants begin with a precise definition of Scriptural "sufficiency"?
Not necessarily. If there is no viable or comparable alternative to Scripture (as defined), then by process of elimination, sola Scriptura is the only remaining option. In that respect, the sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternatives. They are insufficient. Indeed, they are false alternatives. You don't have to prove sola Scriptura or the sufficiency of Scripture directly; rather, you only have to disprove rival paradigms.
If Scripture is the only source of God's public, propositional revelation, then it naturally enjoys a certain primacy in relation to other sources of information or belief. Divine revelation is normative in a way that nonrevelatory sources or putative candidates are not.
That doesn't mean Protestants have no burden of proof, but I'm just framing the issue. Where to locate the burden of proof. And, of course, Catholics have their own burden of proof.
4. Williams says Scripture cannot be sufficient because we can't establish the canon from Scripture alone. We can't can't answer the canonicity of Hebrews by looking to the scriptures. We can't prove from Scripture that Jude is inspired. Scripture has no inspired table of contents or index. The canon is not implicitly materially within Scripture.
There are, however, some basic problems with his objection. To say Scripture is insufficient because Scripture is insufficient to give us the canon of Scripture is an eccentric definition. That's not what Protestants mean by Scriptural sufficiency.
In fairness, Williams may say the Protestant definition is arbitrarily restrictive.
However, the sufficiency of Scripture doesn't rule out the necessity of extrabiblical evidence to identify Scripture and interpret Scripture. For the point of contrast involves the distinction between what is revelation and what is not revelation. The fact that we need some knowledge of history, some knowledge of the world, to identify revelation and interpret revelation doesn't nullify the unique authority of revelation to determine our duties to God and man. If the Lord has verbally expressed his will regarding our duties to God and man, how could any nonrevelatory source of information function as an equally authoritative source and standard of guidance?
In fact, Catholic apologists concede this principle by appealing to ongoing revelation when they claim the Holy Spirit guides the Roman Catholic church into all truth. They themselves regard revelation, or the functional equivalent (the extraordinary magisterium) as a higher source and standard of guidance than nonrevelatory sources of information. So where the dispute comes to a head is (i) if there is ongoing public revelation, and (ii) the church of Rome is the organ of that revelation.
5. Another distinction. The sufficiency of Scripture stands in contrast, not to extrabiblical sources of evidence, but to an illicit argument from authority. Appeal to reason and evidence is very different from appeal to the Roman Magisterium or a Roman Catholic census fidelium. It's equivocal to say that when Protestants rely on extrabiblical evidence, that's a concession to, or equivalent to, "tradition" in the technical Roman Catholic sense of the word. Appeal to extrabiblical evidence is not an argument from ecclesiastical authority.
This is a problem with Williams contention that we need to go by "tradition" to establish the canon. But that's a loaded word. In Catholicism, "sacred tradition" or "living tradition" is hardly synonymous with evidence. Rather, it's a very selective view of what constitutes the relevant evidence.
6. Williams talks about "the Church hearing the Holy Spirit's voice", but in ancient debates over the canonicity of certain books, the appeal wasn't to detecting the Holy Spirit speaking to the church, but questions of authorship and evidence for authorship.
7. Williams neglects or underestimates the internal evidence for the canon. Underestimates internal evidence for the authorship of many biblical books. Overlooks the cross-attestation between many biblical books. Many biblical books naturally group together. You don't need separate attestation for the five books of the Pentateuch. They form a literary unit. You don't need separate attestation for Luke-Acts.
The historical books for a continuous history. Each succeeding book takes up where the preceding book left off. There's overlap between the historical books and the prophets. There's overlap between Acts and the NT epistles.
Books sharing common authorship go together. The Synoptic Gospels are interconnected. Later books frequently refer back to incidents recorded in earlier books. The phenomenon of "undesigned coincidences" is another example.
The fact that the case for the canon may need to be supplemented by external evidence doesn't reduce the canon to a random anthology of writings, as if we could just as well produce a different collection.
8. In prooftexting the Roman Magisterium from Mt 16, Williams makes the standard move of assuming that v19 is an allusion to Isa 22:22, then imports the entire Isaian context into v19. However, the related metaphors of keys, gates, and doors are stock imagery (e.g. Mt 23:13; 25:10; Lk 11:52; Jn 10:9; Acts 14:27; 1 Cor 16:9; Col 4:3; Rev 1:18; 3:7-8,20; 9:1; 20:1), so it doesn't require any special explanation, in terms of literary dependence, to account for the imagery. And even if it was an allusion to Isa 22:22, it doesn't follow that Jesus is reproducing the entire context of Isa 22, rather than mining the passage for picturesque metaphors or theological motifs.
9. To ascribe certain prerogatives to Peter does not imply that he alone has these prerogatives. Mt 16 doesn't contrast Peter with what is said about the other disciples in the Gospel. It doesn't say Peter had these prerogatives to the exclusion of the other disciples. It's illogical to infer that what is said about one person can't therefore be said about someone else.
10. Williams confidently says binding and loosing is a rabbinical concept. Well, that's one possible meaning. But the binding/loosing metaphor needs to be related to the keys metaphor. And is it coincidental that we have a back-to-back comparison between the "gates of hell" (v18) and the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (v19)? Isn't that a clue?
11. When Catholic apologists like Williams quote statements about "the church" in Matthew and elsewhere, there's the danger of committing the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy, where they read a theological construct, based on all the varied occurrences of "the church" in NT usage, back into any particular occurrence. We need to avoid making "church" a loaded word wherever it occurs in the NT.
12. Williams initially says Jn 16:13 is a promise to the apostles, but later he reverts to the standard Catholic substitution when he says the Holy Spirit guides "the church" into all truth. But that's not what the text says. At best, that's reading apostolic succession back into Jn 16:13.
And even if, for the sake of argument, we suppose Jn 16:13 is a promise to "the church", there's nothing in the text or context or entire Gospel to index that to the Roman Catholic church.
13. He says Trent simply formalized the sensus fidelium regarding the scope of the canon, yet there was no consensus when the Tridentine Fathers met. Rather, two opposing camps were represented: the Jewish canon championed by Jerome and the wider canon championed by Augustine. Moreover, the final vote wasn't unanimous, or even a majority, but merely a plurality: "by a vote of 24-15, with 16 abstentions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis)" B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford, 1987), 246.
14. Williams emphasized the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, represented by the sensus fidelium. In my extensive experience, Catholic apologists routinely attack sola Scriptura and "private interpretation" on the grounds that you can't interpret the Bible on your own.
15. There's abundant evidence that the Roman Magisterium is not what it aspires to be. Abundant evidence that the church of Rome performs just like you'd expect from an all-too-human organization that lacks foresight, that's improvising on the fly, that can't anticipate future developments, and must therefore reinvent itself periodically. Like other Catholic apologists, Williams is offering us a winsome paper theory that bursts into flame when put in contact with the realities of church history.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
1 Timothy 5:18 Is Important In Apologetics
For example, the passage has significant implications for the canon of scripture, the dating of the Synoptics and Acts, whether Paul agreed with concepts affirmed in Luke's gospel (the virgin birth, the empty tomb, etc.), and how widely accepted the beliefs in question were (e.g., since Paul expects his audience to accept what he's saying without further explanation). And much of what I just mentioned is applicable to some extent even if Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy is rejected and the document is dated later than Paul's lifetime. For example, if the passage reflects widespread acceptance of the virgin birth, then that's significant even if Paul wasn't involved. In fact, if the initial audience was much wider than one individual (Timothy), as it presumably would be under a pseudonymous authorship scenario, then the implications of the passage are more significant accordingly.
I've sometimes cited Michael Kruger's work in support of the conclusion that 1 Timothy 5:18 is citing Luke's gospel as scripture. In a book published late last year, he provides a lengthier case for that conclusion. It's on pages 680-700 of Lois K. Fuller Dow, et al., edd., The Language And Literature Of The New Testament (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2017). If you don't want to pay the large price for the book, you can get it at a library or through interlibrary loan, as I did. Kruger's chapter is well worth getting and reading. He goes into a lot of detail, but here are some highlights:
Kruger addresses objections to an early dating of Luke's gospel, but only briefly. For some additional evidence suggesting an early date, see here and here.
I've sometimes cited Michael Kruger's work in support of the conclusion that 1 Timothy 5:18 is citing Luke's gospel as scripture. In a book published late last year, he provides a lengthier case for that conclusion. It's on pages 680-700 of Lois K. Fuller Dow, et al., edd., The Language And Literature Of The New Testament (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2017). If you don't want to pay the large price for the book, you can get it at a library or through interlibrary loan, as I did. Kruger's chapter is well worth getting and reading. He goes into a lot of detail, but here are some highlights:
Given that we have an exact match with a known source (Luke 10:7) - and exact matches are quite rare when tracing the words of Jesus during this time period - this raises the question of why we would prefer an unknown source to a known one. And there is another advantage of preferring the known source, namely that we know that (at some point) Luke actually acquired the scriptural status that 1 Tim 5:18 requires, whereas we have no evidence that any sayings source ever acquired such a scriptural status….
If it is too early for Luke to be regarded as Scripture, why is it not also too early for a written sayings source [a hypothetical alternative to Luke] to be regarded as Scripture? After all, one might think that Luke's purported apostolic connections (Luke 1:1-4) might allow his Gospel to be regarded as Scripture even more quickly than an anonymous sayings source….
He [John Meier, a New Testament scholar who's not a conservative and rejects Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy] states, "The only interpretation that avoids contorted intellectual acrobatics or special pleading is the plain, obvious one. [1 Timothy] is citing Luke's Gospel alongside Deuteronomy as normative Scripture for the ordering of the church's ministry." (689-91)
Kruger addresses objections to an early dating of Luke's gospel, but only briefly. For some additional evidence suggesting an early date, see here and here.
Clashing paradigms
For one thing, classic dispensationalism is a whole system of theology. It has a great deal of internal coherence. A system that is carefully and thoroughly elaborated, whether right or wrong, will almost certainly include answers to standard objections. And different parts of the system “come to the aid” of any part that is challenged. To a certain extent this is true of any system of theology. Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalism, chap. 5.
Although this has specific reference to the Dispensational/Covenant theology debate, it has many parallels, viz. evolution/creationism; atheism/Christianity, Catholicism/Protestantism, Calvinism/Arminianism, Calvinism/Molinism, Calvinism/open theism.
This is why coherence is an insufficient criterion to assess a paradigm or adjudicate between competing paradigms. It's often possible for a given paradigm to fend off objections by resorting to ad hoc postulates and stopgap harmonizations. Paradigms can be very flexible, and have the internal resources to deflect stock objections.
In addition to internal consistency, there needs to be some evidence that the underlying claim is true, before a defender resorts a hypothetical explanation to fend off objections. Moreover, it's good to have evidence for the postulates and harmonizations. If not direct evidence, at least evidence for analogous situations.
Special pleading ensues when a proponent defends a claim for which there's no good evidence, or even prima facie evidence to the contrary, by appealing to fact-free possibilities.
Voluntaryism
I was recently asked some questions about anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism.
I don't think taxes in principle are theft. The electorate consents to taxation. In society, we sometimes pool our collective financial resources for the common good. That's the idealistic justification.
Taxation for purposes of income redistribution is theft. Taxation that goes above and beyond the mandated duties of gov't is theft.
The social contract involves ceding a degree of individual freedom. In a representative democracy, the majority makes decisions for everyone.
Admittedly, that principle can allow for opt-out provisions in many cases. Take taxation for public education. If a parent chooses an alternative to public education, he ought to get a tax credit. Why should he pay into a system when he doesn't receive the benefit?
In addition, there are tons of gratuitous licensing fees that only exist to pad the gov't coffers.
I'm struck by how passive the electorate is in letting gov't rip them off. In a representative democracy, it's ultimately up to the pubic to determine the rate of taxation. But many people either get used to the status quo, and don't notice it anymore, or are addicted to invasive gov't.
Voluntaryism is too one-sided. Because humans are social creatures who live in community, it is often necessary for humans to take collective action to survive and thrive. Hence, it isn't feasible for each and every individual to have the right to veto collective action. There's a coercive element to social life. Individual liberties must be counterbalanced against the rights and needs of other individuals. And cooperation must sometimes be imposed. That's unavoidable given the fact that humans depend on one another to flourish.
Our Constitutional system of gov't is one such attempt. Once ratified by the people's elected representatives, it is default binding on subsequent generations who didn't vote for it.
However, the Constitution itself has a mechanism for subsequent generations to renegotiate the social contract by amendment or even a Constitutional convention. And the status quo isn't absolute. In extreme cases, revolution remains and option. Indeed, that's how the Constitution came into being.
Majorities can be tyrannical, but so can ruling elites. I don't think there's a purely abstract way to balance individual liberties over against the common good. I think we need to begin with some specific rights and responsibilities in reference to individual and social ethics alike. The Bible is the primary frame of reference. Of course, that has its own complications, but that's the best starting-point.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Miraculous organ regeneration
Although Nabeel has yet to receive his hope-for miracle, beginning around the 3 min. mark, he relates two other anecdotes involving other people which, if true, would be miraculous:
When atheists tauntingly ask, "Why doesn't God heal amputees," these would be examples of miraculous organ regeneration.
Dwarves in the stable
Recently I had an exchange with three Catholics on Facebook. They're right out of the stable of the Dwarves (from The Last Battle). I'll change the names to protect the guilty.
This passage jumped out at me today: (John 5:2-4) "Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had."To our modern ears, this almost sounds like fantasy or superstition that God would send an angel to do this, but it would mean healing waters like in Lourdes have a precedent. (It would even suggest that the saints in heaven would be involved in similar seemingly trivial pursuits.) The existence of such things as healing sites in Catholicism gives me comfort, while the absence and distrust of such in Protestantism is disheartening.
Hays
It sounds like fantasy or superstition because you're quoting a scribal interpolation.
Dopey
On what basis do you make that claim Steve Hays?
Hays
For instance:
* [5:3] The Caesarean and Western recensions, followed by the Vulgate, add “waiting for the movement of the water.” Apparently an intermittent spring in the pool bubbled up occasionally (see Jn 5:7). This turbulence was believed to cure.* [5:4] Toward the end of the second century in the West and among the fourth-century Greek Fathers, an additional verse was known: “For [from time to time] an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool; and the water was stirred up, so the first one to get in [after the stirring of the water] was healed of whatever disease afflicted him.” The angel was a popular explanation of the turbulence and the healing powers attributed to it. This verse is missing from all early Greek manuscripts and the earliest versions, including the original Vulgate. Its vocabulary is markedly non-Johannine.
Dopey
I'll give the Covenanters one thing: they rightly recognize the problem created by exposing the canon and parts within it to higher criticism: it places the whole thing into doubt and implies that parts or entire books could be jettisoned based upon some future discovery or the logic of man.
Grumpy
Perhaps the solution is for everyone to ask Calvinists what the burning in their bosom indicates about any and all passages and then go with that.
Hays
Always funny to see conservative Catholics who distrust the Magisterium. The USCCB must be a schismatic organization. Thankfully, we have lay Catholics to protect the faithful from their nefarious religious superiors. Apparently, textual criticism is incompatible with Catholicism? Once again, the Magisterium is asleep at the switch.
Dopey
The USCCB isn't part of the magisterium. I'm not completely shocked you aren't aware of this. For what makes up the catholic bible: read Trent.
Grumpy
The notes notes contained in The NAB have always received extensive criticism. Also, those notes generally do not command obedience of faith. Lastly, I said no such thing about textual criticism.
Hays
So the Roman episcopate is leading the faithful astray by commending the NAB to Catholics. Good thing we have lay Catholic gatekeepers of orthodoxy to protect the faithful from all those renegade bishops.
Because bishops aren't part of the magisterium:
As Christ's vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is an assembly of the hierarchy of the United States and the US Virgin Islands.
Dopey
The USCCB carries with it absolutely no magisterial authority. It is pastoral in nature and that is clear from the code of canon law. But hey let's argue over it forever and ever!
Hays
So the teaching of Catholic bishops carries absolutely no magisterial authority. Do you also share the view of sedevacantists that as a pastoral council, Vatican II has absolutely no magisterial authority?
Dopey
Is it contrary to catholic doctrine that individual bishops or groups of bishops are unable to lead Catholics astray? I'm not entirely sure why your comments would be germane to anything having to do with anything.
Hays
So Dopey must fall back on his private opinion to differentiate orthodox episcopal teaching from heretical episcopal teaching. Dopey is the final interpretive authority (as Bryan Cross is wont to say).
Grumpy
Where does the USCCB indicate that the passage you reject is not authentic scripture?
Hays
So you're saying scribal interpolations are authentic scripture?
Sneezy
I didn't realize this verse was so controversial. Really, does it pose a threat to anyone's theology?
Hays
It's true that pious fiction poses no threat to Catholicism. Catholicism feeds on pious fiction, if that's what you mean.
Grumpy, I appreciate your dependence on evangelical Bible scholarship. That said, funny that you quote Bruce on an unrelated pericope and ignore what he says on the actual passage at issue, where he states we can't credit the Evangelist with the angelic business; rather, a scribe added that based on folk beliefs–as well as his referencing Fee's article on the inauthenticity of 5:3b-4. Here's the article that Bruce referenced:
In addition, you commit a category confusion. Even if we make the overly-generous, indemonstrable assumption that the angelic business reflects authentic oral tradition, that's insufficient to make a scribal interpolation Scripture. Do you think Christian scribes were divinely inspired? Likewise, doesn't Trent assume traditional authorship as a presupposition for canonizing the Gospels?
Grumpy
Not at all, whoever made the interpolation, if it indeed is an interpolation, may be an apostolicly directed interpolation. You're simply assuming what Bruce denies we can and should do and what the USCCB is silent about.
Hays
You illustrate how Catholics resort to fact-free conjecture to shore up their position. You're welcome to build your faith on a foundation of pious fiction and legendary embellishment. That's Catholicism.
Look, you're the one, not me, to make Bruce your Alamo. But he punts to Fee, which you continue to dodge. Here's another detailed analysis:
I'm not the one who's falling back on empty rhetoric. I've directed you to two detailed, scholarly discussions of the interpolation: both of which are available online. Just follow the links. You're the one who's laboring to bluff your way through this discussion.
The relevant question is what the evidence points to. Fee provides detail that Bruce does not and cannot. The factual question is whether there's any good reason to believe an angel stirred the water, thereby conferring curative properties on the water. The question is whether this interpolation squares with reality.
BTW, it would be counterproductive for the narrator to ascribe supernatural curative powers to the pool when the account makes Jesus the healer. That's one more reason to conclude the verse is spurious.
You're now saying Bruce defaults to an article that contradicts his own position. Gee, how plausible is that?
Maybe there's an off-chance that the Gospel of Judas preserves some historical tidbits about Jesus and the apostles. By your criterion, Catholics don't need an positive evidence that something's the case. Rather, begin with sheer possibilities, then the onus is to disprove it. So the Gospel of Judas can still be regarded as authentic scripture. And while you're at it, for all you know, Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. Who needs actual evidence when you can postulate convenient hypotheticals, then say the burden of proof is on the denier?
Dopey
What is the official position of the USCCB on whether or not the verses in question are scripture?
Hays
Dopey hasn't figured out the problem. On the one hand is the traditional position staked out by Trent. On the other hand, Catholicism has evolved since the time of Trent so that some key presuppositions of the Tridentine position on the canon have been tunneled under by higher criticism and lower criticism. So modern Catholicism is in the awkward situation of Neurath's ship. It must pay lip-service to certain traditional conclusions even though it no longer grants the foundation on which those conclusions rest.
Grumpy, you're repeating the same non sequitur. I already corrected you on that. Even if (ex hypothesi), the scribal interpolation codifies a reliable oral tradition that was floating around until the scribe added that to Jn 5, what makes you think that rises to the level of "scripture"?
And you continue to operate with a subversively irrational notion regarding the burden of proof.
Grumpy
Perhaps you haven't noticed but you're shifting the argument.
Hays
I haven't shifted the argument at all. Here's my original comment:
"It sounds like fantasy or superstition because you're quoting a scribal interpolation."
I then quoted a footnote to the edition of Scripture hosted at the USCCB website which tactfully implies that the verse is a scribal interpolation, based on folk beliefs.
Your starting-point subverts rationality. Instead of beginning with reality, and evidence for reality, you act as if this is just a question of logical harmonization, where, if you can show that X is logically compatible with Y, even though there's no evidence that your postulate is true, and indeed, evidence that your postulate is probably based on folkloric associations with pagan healing sites, then that's all you need to do. You betray an appetite for self-deception. But it's your life. If you wish to fritter away your life in a quest for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that's your prerogative.
Once again, Grumpy, your assumption seems to be that if the anecdote about the angel possibly reflects an accurate memory or a local legend, and a scribe added it to the text, that makes his addition "authentic divine revelation". There are several missing steps from your starting-point to your conclusion. Care to fill in the gaps?
For instance, Tacitus has some accurate information about the Christian faith. That doesn't make his statement "authentic divine revelation."
You keep asserting that the the USCCB passage is compatible with the scribal interpolation as "authentic divine scripture". It's up to you to turn your assertion into an actual argument. You've resorted to the illogical procedure of (selectively) quoting something from Bruce's popular commentary, which you combine with the USCCB passage, as if you can use what Bruce (partially) says to interpret what the bishops had in mind. That's a non sequitur. There's no connection between whatever Bruce means and what the bishops mean.
Grumpy
Does the USCCB identify the scribes? If not, then it is possible that they were scribes directed by the apostles to do so.
Hays
i) This is a good example of apologists who dream up "possibilities" out of thin air to salvage their position. Your position isn't based on evidence, but wishful thinking. This leads to your subversive burden of proof, where the onus is on someone to disprove a claim for which there's no evidence. That's a completely irrational methodology.
ii) Your fact-free conjecture ("scribes directed by apostles") fails to explain "its absence from the earliest and best witnesses…the presence of asterisks or obeli to mark the words as spurious in more than twenty Greek witnesses" Bruce, Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 2nd ed., 1994), 179.
iii) Finally, according to Vatican I and Vatican II, inspiration is a necessary condition for something to be Scripture. You have yet to explain how a scribe interpolation satisfies that prerequisite.
There is no burden of proof to disprove concocted "possibilities" for which there's no evidence. It's possible that the last three papal elections were rigged. It's possible that someone put the squeeze on the cardinals in the papal conclave. By your yardstick, the onus is on you to prove me wrong.
I notice that you ducked the issue of how an uninspired scribal interpolation counts as "authentic scripture" if Vatican I and Vatican II make inspiration a necessary condition of scripture. Dodging the issue doesn't make it go away.
What you've done is a splice something from Bruce onto the USCCB statement, as if the USCCB agrees with (your interpretation of) Bruce. That's another one of your non sequiturs.
Now we have the diversionary tactic of quoting Calvin on Jn 5:3b-4, as if he had the advantages of modern NT textual critics. A backdoor admission that Catholic commenters don't have a serious argument.
Dopey
I'm sorry but the notes at the bottom of the NABRE don't comprise a statement by the USCCB.
Hays
Dopey thinks entire national wings of the Catholic hierarchy can go rogue.
Dopey
Also, all Grumpy is done is show how such an interpolation can be part of sacred scripture and it's transmission be inspired. I'm not sure what rule would mitigate against a scribal interpolation being inspired"
Hays
What about complete lack of evidence?
Dopey
Especially the weight given the vulgate via Trent.
Hays
You're welcome to go down with the sinking ship of Trent on the Vulgate.
But even on your own grounds, the original Vulgate didn't contain Jn 5:3b-4.
Sneezy
I saw this argument on one site: "The sick man speaks of the water being stirred, but without verses 3b-4, there wouldn't be any indication about what the water being stirred up even refers to in the first place."
Hays
You might try consulting Catholic scholarship for a change: "The bubbling of water (v7), caused perhaps by an intermittent spring," Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (Doubleday 1977), 1:207.
BTW, this commentary carries both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur.
Dopey
Completely unnessarily rude, yet again.
Hays
Not at all unnecessary. It's me, the Protestant, who keeps up with Catholic Bible scholarship. I'm the one who must quote that to you. Shame on you!
Sneezy
Modern bible scholarship is a bunch of apostates doing the bare minimum to not get in trouble. They don't believe in inspiration in the first place. Thankfully, they aren't magisterium. It's a mark of desperation to put too much emphasis on them.
Dopey
1. Raymond Brown can hardly be considered the vanguurd of Catholic Biblical scholarship.
2. The sole opinion of Raymond Brown is not the end all / be all of Catholic exegesis.
3. The Nihil Obstat doesn't mean anything other than a single Bishop approves of it.
Hays
Actually, you're suggesting that the USCCB is misleading the flock by directing the flock to an approved study Bible that undermines the faith. An entire national wing of the Catholic hierarchy can't be trusted to teach sound doctrine. The faithful must be ever vigilant not to be led astray by their religious superiors. Thankfully, Catholic layman like Dopey and Gerry Matatics are the true gatekeepers of orthodoxy.
What we see on this comment thread is a classic divide between mainstream Catholic scholarship and laymen who are functionally sedevacantists. Catholic laymen who distrust the hierarchy. A very self-defeating way to defend Catholicism. In Catholicism, it's every man for himself. You must be constantly on the alert against wolfish bishops in sheepish vestments.
Grumpy
You're the one who's made a positive claim.
Hays
That's the move that village atheists constantly make. They act as if only one side has a burden of proof: the side making "a positive claim".
But that's fallacious. Denials are truth-claims no less than affirmations.
It's been instructive to see Catholics who are fanatically committed to make-believe. I understand that. That's what makes you Catholic. Thanks for the confirmation.
Gay surgeons
On Facebook, a Christian expressed disapproval for a paddy wagon with gay propaganda. Predictably, atheists pounced. I then responded on his behalf. Here's my exchange (edited for coherence):
Blair
Pretty awful to insult the brave men and women who put their lives in danger every day to protect us all.
Hays
i) Do you think the police were given a chance to vote on this? Are police who disagree allowed to op-out? This is a policy that's imposed on the police.
ii) Actually, this is a perfect example of an agenda that distracts from legitimate policing. Instead of protecting the public from harm, they become thought-police.
From stories I've read by Peter Hitchens and Mark Steyn, police often protect criminals from the public rather than protecting the public from criminals.
Blair
Tell the homosexual surgeon you want another doctor to look after you.
Hays
Given that AIDS is spread through blood, what about the risk that a homosexual surgeon will accidentally infect the patient?
Blair
Or tell the bisexual police officer disarming a foe in front of your eyes you'd rather she didn't.
Hays
What makes you think he needs a woman to protect him? From what I've read, most UK police don't carry guns.
How is an unarmed women better able to protect a man from an assailment than the man himself? Men are generally stronger than women.
Kafka
I'm interested in his view of how he'd get on against a highly trained female police officer with pepper spray and a truncheon, when he was already engaged in a fight with someone else?
Hays
At the risk of stating the obvious, men in general are much stronger than women. In a fight, men generally have a very significant advantage. Although he may not be a martial artist, he's a man in the prime of life. And he's not overweight. Who do you think has a better chance in hand-to-hand combat with a male assailant? A woman or another man?
In fact, he might have to protect the policewoman rather than the other way round. Truncheon? And what if a male assailant who's far stronger than the policewoman takes her truncheon away and beats her with it?
Pepper spray? Who needs "high-trained police officers" who carry pepper spray? Anyone can use pepper spray.
Kafka
But hey, just for fun - do you think homosexual men (I presume) should be barred from becoming surgeons?
Hays
I don't think surgeons should pose a threat to their patients.
Kafka
Heterosexual people can also get AIDS.
Hays
I made the incontrovertible point that infected blood is a primary conduit for the transmission of AIDS. Kakfa counters with the utterly brilliant observation that heterosexuals can also get AIDS. Indeed, one way is through…infected blood! I appreciate how Kafka unwittingly proves my point.
From what I've read, there's little evidence for the heterosexual transmission of AIDS. There is evidence for the bisexual transmission of AIDS.
McGowan
Steve Hays man. Any chances you could just stop.
Hays
I can certainly empathize with how the losing side of the argument might wish for that to happen.
Duncan
One thing I've noticed from these posts is no matter how low Jonathan goes, steve Hays always manages to go even lower.
Hays
I wasn't the one who trotted out the example of a gay surgeon. It's a simple question of logic:
AIDS is transmitted via blood. If a gay surgeon cuts himself during an operation, he can bleed into the patient, thereby infecting the patient.
Blood makes surgical gloves slippery, and scalpels are extremely sharp, so it's easy to knick himself.
Demonstrate a logical flaw in the reasoning, if you can.
Duncan
Also steve hays my girlfriend is from zimbabwe where 1 in 7 are hiv positive. I suppose using your logic that she shouldn't be doing her job within the NHS?
Hays
So what are you saying?
i) HIV-positive surgeons should operate on patients?
ii) HIV-positive surgeons who have girlfriends or boyfriends should operate on patients?
Or were you referring to non-surgical medical professions?
Duncan
Your logical flaw is in assuming that the gay surgeon has aids.
Hays
i) No, my statement didn't assume that. Rather, homosexual men are at high risk of HIV infection and AIDS. That means a gay surgeon is far more likely to be HIV-positive (or have AIDS). Just statistics. Why expose patients to that gratuitous risk?
ii) BTW, are you conceding that an HIV-positive surgeon should not be allowed to operate on patients?
Duncan
My friends didn't bother pointing this out because most of us would laugh at your statement assuming it was some kind of irony because we simply don't know people like you who could make such horrifying statements without it being a joke of some sort.
Hays
Do you think this is a joke?
Justin
Do we have any statistics on how often a surgeon gets their own blood on their patient? I bet it's close to never.
Hays
You bet?
BTW, a friend of mine in the medical profession mentioned to me that as far as surgeons infecting patients, there's a general category called nosocomial infections, i.e., hospital acquired infections, which includes surgeons and other physicians infecting patients including with serious bugs like HIV, Hep B, Hep C, etc. It actually happens quite often. It's also in part how super bugs like MRSAs spread in hospital environments. In other words, they can just Google nosocomial infections and see there's tons of cases of this happening, and even significant research done on it to try to prevent or minimize it, since it is such a common issue. So it's far from absurd or ridiculous to say a surgeon with HIV or another infectious disease has a likelihood of infecting patients. It's more common than most people realize. Also iatrogenic or physician induced disease overlaps with much of this too.
Kafka
I think you seriously underestimate the difference training makes. Or seriously overestimate his pugilistic skills, or indeed the vast majority of 'assailants' (who are frequently drunk, uncoordinated, unfit braggarts)."
Hays
Why would he need any assistance fending off a drunk, uncoordinated, unfit assailant?
Kafka
The question stands - would you fancy your chances against a physically fit, well-equipped, self-defence and disarm/disable-trained female police officer?
Hays
That obviously depends on what you put up against the policewoman. For instance:
BTW, I've seen lots of overweight police officers, middle-aged police officers, or both. So your physically "fit" police officer is an idealization. Some police officers are young and fit, others are out-of-shape or over-the-hill.
Kafka
OK, this one did give me a giggle.
Hays
The idea of men protecting a woman from an assailant makes you giggle?
Kafka
Pepper spray is an effective tool in temporarily disabling an assailant.
Hays
Which hardly singles out police, unless it's illegal in the UK for private citizens to carry pepper spray. That would be a really dumb policy.
Pepper spray cuts both ways. An assailant can use pepper spray to disable a police officer.
Kafka
Do you think the police should not carry pepper spray? But, presumably, should carry guns?
Hays
As well as private citizens.
Kafka
Do you think homosexual men should not be allowed to be surgeons?
Hays
Do you think they should be required to disclose their HIV status to patients?
Kafka
Or work in the medical profession?"
Hays
Is the fact that you're changing the subject a backdoor admission that you don't think HIV-positive surgeons should operate on patients?
The question at issue wasn't generic "healthcare worker" to patient transmission, but surgeons. And I wasn't the commenter who introduced that example. Your side did that.
Kafka
Do you think women should be excluded from frontline police duties?
Hays
I think there are obviously situations in which a man is better suited to the task.
Kafka
How about homosexual men?
Hays
Actually, it's a mistake to put homosexuals in positions of power over others.
Kafka
Are you, in fact, from the nineteenth century?
Hays
Einstein was from the 19C. I guess that disqualifies the theory of relativity. Darwin was from the 19C. I guess that disqualifies the theory of evolution. Bohr was from the 19C. I guess that disqualifies quantum mechanics.
Kafka
I was putting you up against the policewoman (neither of you has a gun).
Hays
That depends on my physical condition. I gave you an actual example of a man wresting a service revolver away from an armed, "highly-trained" policewoman.
Kafka
Is the Catholic Church abuse scandal not an example of what happens when Christians are put in a position of power over others? Just a thought you understand
Hays
i) I don't regard "Roman Catholic" and "Christian" as synonyms.
ii) No, this is not a generic comparison about "Christians in positions of power over others."
Rather, there's a specific, homosexual correlation. According to the John Jay report, "The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male."
When the male to male ratio between the perp and the victim is 8-1, that's a homosexual scandal.
I also mentioned a parallel problem in the BSA. For instance:
That, too, is a homosexual scandal. So there's a pattern.
In addition, homosexuals in positions of power lobby (with some success) to criminalize people who dissent from homosexuality. That's another cautionary example of what happens when homosexuals are in positions of power over others.
Kafka
The people who carried out the abuse you describe professed to be Catholics, and were indisputably paedophiles. How is it irrelevant?
Hays
They were homosexuals abusing teenage boys or younger. Those are the stats.
Kafka
They were (professed) Christian paedophiles. There are countless examples of heterosexual paedophiles systematically abusing children. Should heterosexual people also not be placed in positions of power?
Hays
You're the one, not me, who used the word "pedophile". They are professedly Roman Catholics.
The overwhelming majority of the population is straight. According to a CDC survey, only 1.6% of the American population identified as gay or lesbian.
Given the stats, it's unavoidable that heterosexuals will be in positions of power. There's no alternative.
By contrast, the harm which homosexuals inflict in minors under their authority is avoidable, considering the fact that homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the population.
So it's a question of risk management. The fact that we can't eliminate all abuse doesn't mean we should make no effort to eliminate abuse where we can–especially in documentable high-risk groups.
Kafka
So you are directly advocating discrimination?
Hays
I'm directly advocating the protection of children. Sorry if that bothers you.
BTW, there's nothing unusual or outlandish about advocating "discrimination". That's what laws do: they discriminate. The penal code "discriminates" against various classes based on different types of conduct.
Kafka
And you think that children are best protected by discriminating against homosexuals?
Hays
Children are protected by not putting them under the authority of homosexuals. I've provided documentation. But you don't care about evidence or kids, you only care about your vicious ideology.
Just in general, it's revealing to see the almost completely lack of intellectual leadership from atheists on the culture wars. They jump right on the bandwagon of whatever is popular, whatever has momentum. While they pay lip-service to science, notice how many atheists ignore the biological facts about human sexual dimorphism. How they buy into the unscientific fad of transgenderism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)