Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
>> Trained for menial tasks are you?
Consider yourself to be a menial task do you?
It sure as hell did more to persevere civilization than any other force I can envision
No question
So, now that I’ve answered your question:
Who is the Word and where are His instructions for indulgences and the persecution of heresy articulated in the New Testament?
Matthew chapters 5 through 7 seem to nail those subjects to the door.
“So, now that I’ve answered your question” What question? You posted four messages and none of them show you were actually answering a question that I could see. If you were posting an attempted answer to this question: “Where are the Word’s instructions for determining inspiration and the canonicity articulated in the New Testament?” then I would expect that one or more of your four posts would at least address inspiration or canonicity but none of them do. Here’s what you posted: John 8:58 - Jesus is talking about Himself and not inspiration or canonicity of New Testament books. Remember, Jesus didn’t write any of the NT books either. You responded to my post 469 with this:John 14:6.
But my question was, “Do Jews believe in the Trinity?” John 14:6 in no way addresses Jewish beliefs about the Trinity. “Consider yourself to be a menial task do you?” No. But if you “seem to understand the Fact that #FFFFF is still <> #000000 “ then you can’t do much more than menial tasks (and your posts show it) and you apparently have poor taste in music too. The only menial task you seem to succeed at is failing. When you actually answer my question you can ask me one and I might consider answering.
Dude. Give it up. He’s wiped the floor with you.
Seriesly. It’s hugh. You’ve got nuttin’.
Hoss
“Dude. Give it up. He’s wiped the floor with you.”
Dude, nuttin’ in John 8:58 says anything about inspiration or canonicity of New Testament books. Dude, nuttin’ in John 14:6 addresses Jewish beliefs about the Trinity.
“Seriesly. It’s hugh. You’ve got nuttin’.”
No, one anti-Catholic falsely claiming that John 8:58 answers a question about inspiration and canonicity while John 14:6 addresses Jewish belief in the Trinity - and another anti-Catholic agreeing with him - only tells that “To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
Make sure you get enough altitude off the ramp; wouldn’t want the shark to get you.
:D
Take care....
Hoss
LOL!
Indeed you may well be highly intelligent and versed. If so why you spend your time on drivel such as this is an enigma wrapped in a mystery.
“Make sure you get enough altitude off the ramp; wouldn’t want the shark to get you.”
If I did it, he wouldn’t. We chummed with Hoss all morning. The shark choked on error.
So, back up again for some air, eh???
Regarding the debt the present owes the past, in the High Middle Ages, Bernard of Chartres asserted that “We are mere dwarfs who see as far as we do only because we stand on the massive shoulders of the Giants of Antiquity, who created Western Civilization.” And they had nary a Bible to Thump, those sad unfortunates.
Earlier, Jesus Christ himself told us to render unto Caesar that which is his and to Almighty God that which is his; implicitly recognizing what is of ‘this world’ and what is of the ‘other world’; a message to all of reality and reconciliation.
But the intolerant of the secular, won’t abide it; insisting only they have the message for Man.
Ask yourself, why is the fanatical cult labeled Islam in perpetual war w/Mankind???
Because it cannot abide any concept, idea or notion that is not derivative of their Religious(Sharia) Law.
You know, it's sad, Vlad; even your attempts at humor fall flat.
Go wash up; after being used to wipe the floor, I'm sure you're more than a little soiled.
Hoss
At least you can admit you should have worded a question better, of course, only AFTER you worded your usual snark and ridicule. Here's the thing, we know that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, don't we? And that principle IS articulated in BOTH testaments of the Bible. Reasonable people can see that the SAME rules apply for ANY writing that claims Divine inspiration. How do we determine inspiration? The same way it has always been determined - the witness, the spirit of prophecy, the power of God (Mark 12:24), the life changing effects, the ability to speak to the heart, the ability to make one wise unto salvation through faith, its ability to provide what a person needs to be complete and thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Another key is that it must not contradict what God has already spoken - because He is not the author of confusion.
I would say that these same principles also tell us how we know what belongs in a collection called The New Testament. The early church received the writings of those Apostles and disciples chosen by God to pen His revelation to them and they, in turn, admonished these churches to make sure they read them, were in obedience to them and that they were copied, preserved and distributed throughout all the congregations. It was that kind of intrinsic authority - handed down from the Apostles - that Christians knew what they had been given was the word of God and every bit as authoritative as the Old Testament.
Some people - I don't know if you do - claim that Paul's words to Timothy concerning "The Scriptures" could only have been speaking of the Old Testament, but I disagree. From http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=898:
The critics’ efforts to discredit the reliability of the New Testament by alleging it does not even claim to be given by divine inspiration are to no avail. The fact is, it claims inspiration numerous times—one example of which is found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
I hope you aren't one of those critics.
https://theduhemsociety.blogspot.com/2009/04/in-memoriam-stanley-l-jaki-osb.html
The Duhem Society
Founded on April 7, 2009, our purpose is to study the writing of Pierre Duhem and Stanley L. Jaki, two great Catholic historians of science. All who are “ready to take a serious look at philosophy and history” are welcome to join.
https://www.amazon.com/Uneasy-Genius-internationales-dhistoire-International/dp/9024735327
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duhem/#HisSci
3. History of Science
For most of the nineteenth century, scholars treated “medieval science” as an oxymoron. Since nothing from the Middle Ages was worthy of the name “science,” no history of medieval science could be written. For example, William Whewell referred to Greek philosophy as “the period of the first waking of science” and to the medieval era as “that of its mid-day slumber” (1857, I, Introduction). As a result, Whewell’s chapter on medieval science from the History of the Inductive Sciences, entitled “Of the Mysticism of the Middle Ages,” was just two-pages long.
With work such as Whewell’s being typical of Duhem’s intellectual context, when Duhem wrote L’évolution de la mécanique, in 1903, he dismissed the Middle Ages as scientifically sterile. Similarly, Duhem’s history of chemical combination, Le mixte et la combinaison chimique, published in book-form in 1902, had jumped from Aristotle’s concept of mixtio to modern concepts. It was only in 1904, while writing Les origines de la statique that Duhem came across an unusual reference to a then-unknown medieval thinker, Jordanus de Nemore. His pursuit of this reference, and the research to which it led, is widely acknowledged to have created the field of the history of medieval science. Where Duhem’s previous histories had been silent, Les origines de la statique contained a number of chapters on medieval science: one treated Jordanus de Nemore; another treated his followers; a third argued their influence on Leonardo de Vinci. In the second volume, Duhem greatly extended his historical scope. As expected, he covered seventeenth-century statics, but he also returned to the middle ages, spending four chapters on geostatics, including the work of Albert of Saxony in the fourteenth century. Les origines de la statique is thus a transition from Duhem’s early conventional histories to the later work for which he is best known, Etudes sur Léonard de Vinci, and Le Système du monde, in which his thesis of the continuity of late medieval and early modern science is fully displayed.
From 1906 to 1913, Duhem delved deeply into his favorite guide for the recovery of the past, the scientific notebooks of Leonardo de Vinci. He published a series of essays uncovering de Vinci’s medieval sources and their influences on the moderns. The third volume of Duhem’s Etudes sur Léonard de Vinci gained a new subtitle, Les précurseurs parisiens de Galilée, announcing Duhem’s bold new thesis that even the works of Galileo had a medieval heritage; reviewing his historical accomplishments, Duhem summarized them as follows:
When we see the science of Galileo triumph over the stubborn Peripatetic philosophy of somebody like Cremonini, we believe, since we are ill-informed about the history of human thought, that we are witness to the victory of modern, young science over medieval philosophy, so obstinate in its mechanical repetition. In truth, we are contemplating the well-paved triumph of the science born at Paris during the fourteenth century over the doctrines of Aristotle and Averroes, restored into repute by the Italian Renaissance. (1917, 162; 1996, 193.)
Duhem presented Galilean dynamics as a continuous development out of medieval dynamics. He recovered the late medieval theory of impetus, tracing it from John Philoponus’ criticism of Aristotle to its mature statements in the fourteenth century works of John Buridan and Nicole Oresme: “The role that impetus played in Buridan’s dynamics is exactly the one that Galileo attributed to impeto or momento, Descartes to ‘quantity of motion,’ and Leibniz finally to vis viva. So exact is this correspondence that, in order to exhibit Galileo’s dynamics, Torricelli, in his Lezioni accademiche, often took up Buridan’s reasons and almost his exact words” (1917, 163–62; 1996, 194). Duhem then sketched the extension of impetus theory from terrestrial dynamics to the motions of the heavens and earth:
Nicole Oresme attributed to the earth a natural impetus similar to the one Buridan attributed to the celestial orbs. In order to account for the vertical fall of weights, he allowed that one must compose this impetus by which the mobile rotates around the earth with the impetus engendered by weight. The principle he distinctly formulated was only obscurely indicated by Copernicus and merely repeated by Giordano Bruno. Galileo used geometry to derive the consequences of that principle, but without correcting the incorrect form of the law of inertia implied in it. (1917, 166; 1996, 196.)
Duhem’s essays on Leonardo de Vinci concluded with a speculation about the means for the transmission of medieval ideas to modern science. Since the studies of Buridan and Oresme had remained in large part in manuscript, Duhem suggested that Albert of Saxony, whose works were printed and reprinted during the sixteenth century, was the likely link to Galileo. Duhem’s key to understanding the transmission of medieval science was Galileo’s use of the phrase Doctores Parisienses, a conventional label denoting Buridan and Oresme, among others. Based on evidence including references to certain unusual doctrines and the particular order in which the questions were arranged, Duhem conjectured that Galileo had consulted George Lokert’s compilation of Albert of Saxony, Themo Judaeus, and others, and the works of the Dominican Domingo de Soto (1906–13, III.582–83). Duhem’s conjecture has been revised and expanded upon: The means of transmission has been made clearer because of the labor of A. C. Crombie, Adriano Carugo, and William Wallace.
In the three years before his death in 1916, Duhem wrote Le Système du monde, but did not succeed in finishing it. He intended it as a twelve-volume work on the history of cosmological doctrines, ending with Copernicus. He completed nine volumes, the first five being published from 1914 to 1919, and the next four having to wait until the 1950s; a tenth, incomplete volume was also published then. These tomes impart an enormous amount of information about medieval astronomy, astrology, tidal theory, and geostatics, again presenting many sources for the first time in the modern era. They also trace developments in doctrines associated with such concepts as infinity, place, time, void, and the plurality or unity of the world. Duhem intended to write a 300-page summary of his results after he was done with the Le Système du monde; he did not have the time to accomplish what would have surely been an amazing volume.
Unlike his philosophical work, Duhem’s influential contemporaries did not receive his historical work with sympathy. As early as 1916, Antonio Favaro, the editor of Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, rejected the continuity of medieval and early modern science. The next generation of historians of science, Alexandre Koyré for example, acknowledged Duhem’s studies as the foundation for modern studies of medieval science, but subjected them to harsh criticism. Two themes divide Koyré’s historical work from that of Duhem. It presents histories of science in which metaphysics plays a primary role in explaining scientific change and it espouses a historiography that gives a central place to the concept of revolution. Medieval thought and early modern science are judged to be different in kind as well as in content.
At the beginning of an essay on void and infinite space, Koyré quotes a passage from Duhem that has become infamous: “If we were obliged to assign a date to the birth of modern science, we would undoubtedly choose 1277, when the Bishop of Paris solemnly proclaimed that a multiplicity of worlds could exist, and that the system of celestial spheres could, without contradiction, be endowed with straight line motion” (1906–13, II.411; see also 1913–59, VII. 4). Koyré calls the two theses from the condemnations of 1277 “absurdities,” noting that they arise in a theological context, and rejects Duhem’s date for the birth of modern science; he remarks that Duhem gives another date elsewhere, corresponding to Buridan’s impetus theory being extended to the heavens, but dismisses it also, saying that “it is as false as the first date” (1961, 37n). For Koyré, the introduction of Platonic metaphysics, the mathematization of nature, marks a break with the Aristotelian Middle Ages.
Koyré’s work influenced Thomas Kuhn and others who made “scientific revolutions” a central feature of their historical accounts. Still, the work of Kuhn and later historically oriented philosophers and sociologists of science did attempt to reintegrate the philosophical and historical studies that Duhem pursued together but that were separated for a good part of the twentieth century.
“Go wash up; after being used to wipe the floor, I’m sure you’re more than a little soiled.”
Nope. Pretty much spotless. The Hoss chum washed right off.
“I would say that these same principles also tell us how we know what belongs in a collection called The New Testament.”
But that still tells us NOTHING about WHICH BOOKS are inspired or part of the canon in the NT. That’s the point.
“Some people - I don’t know if you do - claim that Paul’s words to Timothy concerning “The Scriptures” could only have been speaking of the Old Testament, but I disagree.”
I think the principles of what Paul says to Timothy can apply to NT books - but since the books in question are books he has known since his youth they can only be OT books. Also, the passage tells us nothing about WHICH BOOKS of the NT are inspired or part of the canon.
“I hope you aren’t one of those critics.”
Nope. I just know there are no verses that tell us specifically much about what belongs in the NT according to inspiration or canonicity. The Church does that. The Bible doesn’t.
>>why you spend your time on drivel such as this is an enigma wrapped in a mystery.
Well, why do people explore caves (historical and otherwise)?
"Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?"
That's a quote from the Islamic Hadith.
What's the likelyhood Waraqa was the only catholic in his family? The answer to that is germaine to the veracity of this pillar in the alleged relationship between Rome and Islam:
"Who was Muhammad? Muhammad Mustafa was born in 570 A.D and he died 632 A.D. He fled to Medina in 622 A.D after Khadija’s death. Who was Khadija? Muhammad married Khadija, when he was 25 years of age and she was 40 years old. Her cousin Waraquah was also a Roman Catholic Meccan and she came from a Roman Catholic convent. So we can say that she is a Catholic nun. She was very rich, she live in the convent and she had the whole of the economy basically in a hand and she employed this young man, Muhammad, whom she then, also married."
--The Vatican Islam connection.pdf
-- Composed by – SDRAsia
(
SDRAsia evidently being a Seventh Day Adventist organization, FWIW)
"Islam did not rise except through Ali's sword and Khadijah's wealth,"
Furthermore, the subject is relevant when observed in the context of the more recent antics of Jesuit-educated Zbigniew Brzezinski - who thought it was clever to instigate and fund the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in association with Operation Cyclone, the betrayal of the Shah of Iran, and the support of Ayatollah Khomenhi and Mujaheddin... like Osama Bin Laden.
I'd think we'd be giving credit to the Holy Spirit on this.
Additionally, there were several requirements for a book/letter to be accepted IIRC. I don't have my notes/resources handy so this is off the top of my head.
Generally apostolic authorship
Agreed upon by the church/widespread acceptance
Was beneficial/read in the service
And IIRC, weren't Paul's writings considered Scripture by the 60s if 2 Peter was written in the 60s?
14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16
We know they were in circulation and being read in the various churches.
We might also consider Polycarp’s referencing nearly every ‘epistle’ in his instructions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.