Books of the Bible

[turnorburn]

francisdesales said:

So did Paul also tell us the contents of Sacred Scriptures?

Paul told us what he heard from the holy spirit and you didn't answer my question.

tob

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales said:

Paul told us what he heard from the holy spirit and you didn't answer my question.

tob

So did Joseph Smith and Mohemmed, according to them.

What question did you ask me?

 

[turnorburn]

From post #40..

Paul the Apostle sure had it right.. was the Council Of Trent held before during or after the Inquisitions..

tob

 

[francisdesales]

From post #40..

Paul the Apostle sure had it right.. was the Council Of Trent held before during or after the Inquisitions..

tob

Muslims say Mohammed had it right...doesn't prove he wrote what we call Romans or it is from God.

I suppose you could google an answer to the question, I fail to see the relation to the topic.

 

[turnorburn]

Back in post #12 Barbarian said:

Right. The first approved list came during the Council of Trent. It confirmed the books that had been established by a local council in Florence in the 1400s, and a list that had been presented, but not made canonical by the Council of Carthage in 397,

This concerning the books of the bible so this council of Trent was made up by men whom supposedly had directions from God in order prescribe the official books of the bible.. i was curios to know if they were doing this before during or after the Inquisitions.. if the men that approved this list also approved of the Inquisitions...

tob

 

[francisdesales]

["turnorburn, post: 890471, member: 189"]Back in post #12 Barbarian said:

This concerning the books of the bible so this council of Trent was made up by men whom supposedly had directions from God in order prescribe the official books of the bible.. i was curios to know if they were doing this before during or after the Inquisitions.. if the men that approved this list also approved of the Inquisitions...

tob[/quote]
Inquisitions were directed by local churches, not the universal church. Purpose was to determine whether someone was teaching falsely. I suppose truth was important to them. Has no bearing on counciliar decision. Your way, you have no infallible book. Just opinions.

 

[mondar]

I don't know anything about the variety of Greek manuscripts? Really? You think that? Wow, maybe it's time for me to leave again, I don't need such comments. I clearly stated several times in this very thread that there are a variety of manuscripts TO PROVE MY POINT about knowing whether a book, in of itself, could be self-authenticatingly infallible. I am hoping this is just a slip of the tongue and not some lame ad hominem attack.

Since we don't have the original autographs, how can you call a book infallible based merely upon reading it? ESPECIALLY considering the variety of manuscripts which differ in some ways. That's the point that you failed to digest.

No, it was not intended as ad-hominem, but yes, I think you are clueless concerning the transmission of written manuscripts of the NT. One of the reasons you might have difficulty is you do not read greek, and therefore do not understand some of the reasons for the variants. What you write, seems to show no familiarity with the issue. You keep trumpeting that we do not have the autographs. Of course that is irrelevant. Textual criticism has been able to reconstruct what the original autographs said with reasonable certainly. Of course "reasonable certainty" is not the same thing as infallibility.

This is an verly simplistic illustration, but if you take all the manuscripts written before 500AD, and 9 of 10 have one writing, and 1 has a different spelling, then it would be obvious which was the original.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTOGRAPHS, MONDAR. Let me shout that out to you. Yes, you know that, you state that, but you are not making the logical connection, are you. NO, you aren't... On their own merit, without witnesses, HOW are you going to tell me they are infallible??? I never said the autographs are not infallible. You don't have any autographs, so what good is that argument from you?

Francis, its a very weak point, you should have shouted louder.

By internal investigation, how can you know INFALLIBLY that you have the actual writings of Paul? Did you live with Paul? Do you know someone who is familiar with Paul's actual writings (rather than the claims of Paul's writings)?

Sheesh, your getting worse. Where do I claim to infallibly know which books are the actual writings of Paul? Your making really poor points, and even your rhetorical questions do not demonstrate your following what was said.

By themselves, we cannot even know that the writings that we have are from the supposed authors. Remember the manuscript argument that I made?

Is this sinking in yet? We depend upon a witness who cannot be mistaken to verify that such writings are indeed Paul's. This witness MUST be infallible. You cannot use a circular argument to "prove" that the Bible is infallible from itself. That goes way beyond even knowing who the author is of the writings...

What would you even accept as evidence that Paul wrote the epistles of Paul.
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia:

Internal evidence. Sheesh, just read the book. So you do not believe the NT?

You ask "in what way can anyone claim to be Christian"? Because people believe that the Church is a valid witness of Jesus Christ. As such, they believe what she says regarding the teaching of Jesus, to include the Bible and its interpretation. It CERTAINLY is not from studying in an ivory tower with the 28th edition of some tome, when the 29th edition will blow Romans 3:28 out of the water.

Yeah, when you deny that the NT is infallible, on what basis can you claim to be a Christian? The Church is merely the superstructure, built on the foundational revelations of the apostles and prophets.
Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

I think the part of the problem is that you do not fully understand the concept of "infallibility". You have admitted as such in your poor example regarding the knowledge of what your wife would do. Infallible means "without possibility of error". There is NO human endeavor that can have such a statement attached to it, without God being involved. Thus, we cannot use merely human means of IDENTIFYING those same writings and calling them infallible.

I do not understand infallibility, really? LOL

I did not say we use only naturalistic and materialistic means of understanding which books are canonical. I denied that we infallibily can say which books are canonical. Why the misrepresentation and straw man?

RC Sproul aside, the argument of "fallible table of contents giving an infallible book" shows a lack of knowledge on the very concept of infalliblity. For some book to be "infallible", one must be absolutely certain that it is presented without error. For the BIBLE as an entire entity to be infallible, each and every SECTION must be infallibly selected to an infallible content. Thus, there CANNOT BE a fallible decider of an infallible work, for fallible authority CAN be incorrect - which defeats the entire notion of an infallible book to begin with. The argument utterly fails. I pray that this is seeping in.

You are completely in error here. Any intelligent reader will grasp this. When Paul wrote Romans, when the Romans received it, they received an infallible book. But many of the books were not yet written. So the, 2 Thessalonians was not infallible or fallible, it was not yet written. We do not need the other books to say Romans is infallible.


I am going to quit here and move on. The post will get too long.

 

[mondar]

The Greek used by Peter refers to "letters", not "Sacred Scriptures". You see "scriptures", which means "writings", and you presume that they are equated to Exodus and Genesis. Clearly, Paul wrote a number of things that we no longer possess. Most Scripture scholars recognize that we do not have one or two letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, for example. We don't know what Peter was refering to, which writings, nor is it necessary to say Peter was calling Paul's writings "The Bible".

No, Eugene was totally correct. The word graphe speaks of Sacred Scriptures in 2 Peter. The fact that Paul wrote more than what we have is irrelevant to the context of that passage.

It is actually a joke to think otherwise. So other Christians wrested Pauls grocery shopping list to their own destruction. Yeah right. Peter is talking about people twisting scriptures to create false doctrine.

 

[mondar]

I am not ignoring this post, but quite frankly, it is filled with the same lack of appreciation for what "infallibility" means, so there is no point in continuing a detailed response. Your next to last sentence states the problem clearly: You cannot have a fallible view of a book and call it infallible. By definition, a fallible view cannot identify something as infallible.

Of course you can have an infallible book and have other people fallibly know that the book was written by the correct person.

As an illustration: If I could write something infallible (which I am not claimining) and post it on this forum, the stuff I wrote would be infallible. Now the admin might be able to check the email address, there might be some evidence that I wrote this, but even the admit could not infallibly know that I wrote even this post I am writing right now. Only I can infallibly know what I wrote. It could be someone else sitting here at the keyboard. The admins do not have to infallibly know that I wrote this post, they can accept it as from me on the basis of their fallible knowledge. It is a reasonable thing for them to do. On the other hand, I happened to know some of the admins here, and they knew I died, they well might be suspicious of anyone claiming to be mondar. It seems a reasonable thing to assume that it would be a forgery.

You want evidence, forgeries are usually well know and apparent. Tell me, do you believe the donation of constantine was a forgery? If we say the donation of contantine is a forgery, why can we not claim that Romans is authentic? It seems quite obvious.

 

[mondar]

Later, I will be back, but I am not sure when I can check in.

 

[francisdesales]

I think you are clueless concerning the transmission of written manuscripts of the NT.

I am quite aware of the variety of transmissions of the written manuscripts, I knew about them long before I came to this show. Is this what you have sunken to, Mondar? Pitiful accusations. I myself have mentioned the variety of transcripts in several posts previously - for the point to PROVE to you that you CANNOT know infallibly - without error - whether any of the NT belongs in such a named infallible book by a mere fallible study of the internal evidence.

Sheesh, your getting worse. Where do I claim to infallibly know which books are the actual writings of Paul? Your making really poor points, and even your rhetorical questions do not demonstrate your following what was said.

You still don't get it. Read this very carefully.

The very fact that you think that the Bible is an infallible book indicates that you infallibly know (either by your own superior infallible knowledge or an infallible authority told you), which books are the written works of Paul and which are not. Or the rest of the writers of the NT. Let's not even discuss the Gospels, which occupy a higher pride of place then the Pauline literature, since they discuss Jesus Christ directly.

And so we are back to one of my first posts to you.

Now, explain your infallible source that CANNOT err, Mondar, since you claim to be "different".

What would you even accept as evidence that Paul wrote the epistles of Paul.
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia:

Internal evidence. Sheesh, just read the book. So you do not believe the NT?

Are you so daft to claim that no one else can write "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ..." etc., and not see that this does not prove that PAUL HIMSELF ACTUALLY WROTE THAT...

I'm not saying that someone else did, but you are using this as internal evidence. We don't have the AUTOGRAPHS. Jeez. Are you stating that some scribe couldn't edit what he had and add in some gloss? You've already implied as much that the Church is a terrible witness and cannot even remember what they did the day before, so we should bother listening to anything they have to say.

Since you don't have the original autograph, you cannot INFALLIBLY CLAIM anything about whether Paul wrote what WE NOW CALL "Romans", or whatever, based upon internal evidence.

Sheesh.

Yeah, when you deny that the NT is infallible, on what basis can you claim to be a Christian?

Poisoning the well, now. Sheesh.

Exactly where did I deny that the NT is NOT infallible?

Nowhere.

This is just Mondar being desperate.

Mondar unable to realize that he cannot explain why he believes that the NT is infallible.

Thus, Mondar must try to poison the well, question Francis' Christianity. You should be ashamed of yourself. Just answer me how a fallible person can judge for himself that something is infallible through internal evidence or a fallible judge...

I do not understand infallibility, really? LOL

Yea, it's funny. You don't. And it is correct that you admit that you do not understand infalliblity. You have already demonstrated (and will demonstrate in a future post) that you do not understand the concept of NOT ANY CHANCE of making an error. NO CHANCE, Mondar. That rules out pretty much anything you write, doesn't it. It rules out any hope of judging another person's charecter or what they would do. Since you cannot know that without possibility of being wrong.

I did not say we use only naturalistic and materialistic means of understanding which books are canonical. I denied that we infallibily can say which books are canonical. Why the misrepresentation and straw man?

What means are you using, then, to determine which books are infallible? You suggest your own naturalistic/materialistic resources, since, according to you, there cannot be an infallible Church. So explain yourself. There is no strawman here, no misrepresentation.

You are completely in error here. Any intelligent reader will grasp this. When Paul wrote Romans, when the Romans received it, they received an infallible book.

THAT'S how you are going to cover up your inability to prove for me that a fallible person can know INFALLIBLY that a COLLECTION of works is infallible??? More poisoning the well..

Yea, if you agree with Mondar, you are smart and intelligent, and if you agree with Francis, you are not intelligent.

Phew, give me a break and just stick to the subject and stop with the circular reasoning and begging the question already.

Can you actually explain how a fallible person can judge that a book/letter is infallible, especially when he doesn't even have the original, NOR does he even know INFALLIBLY who wrote it???

No, you can't. You prefer illogical arguments and such pitiful phrases as "any intelligent reader will grasp this"...

When the Romans received "Romans", did they immediately consider it akin to the Pentateuch? And what evidence will you provide me that they did? Is there a corresponding reply to Paul that states "THANKS FOR THE SACRED SCRIPTURES PAUL"...

Furthermore, which you seem to STILL not be able to comprehend (or come to grips with), is that you have NO IDEA what the Romans received from Paul!!! You don't have the original copy. The best you can do is state an opinion.

Now, how does an opinion become the basis for an INFALLIBLE book, meaning, CANNOT ERR? Are you stating that your opinions cannot err???

 

[francisdesales]

Of course you can have an infallible book and have other people fallibly know that the book was written by the correct person.

As an illustration: If I could write something infallible

You can't, so end of story...

 

[WIP]

Can we regroup and get back on topic before this goes any further downhill? As long as we avoid getting personal with each other the topic can be discussed with civility. Thanks.

 

[mondar]

The very fact that you think that the Bible is an infallible book indicates that you infallibly know (either by your own superior infallible knowledge or an infallible authority told you), which books are the written works of Paul and which are not. Or the rest of the writers of the NT. Let's not even discuss the Gospels, which occupy a higher pride of place then the Pauline literature, since they discuss Jesus Christ directly.

Nope, the "very fact" that the Bible is infallible does not indicate that I or anyone else possesses that same infallibility. That is a mere assumption on your part. I already gave an illustration of how this works. Let me repeat the same illustration that you ignored.

How would the mods of this forum know that what I wrote in this post is from me. If we consider what I wrote infallible, do the mods know that it infallibly came from my brain? It could be I am having one of the ministers from my church write this and I am plagiarizing what they wrote. In fact the only person that infallibly knows if I wrote this or not is me. Now the mods could look at the grammar, vocabulary, sentence syntax, and compare it with other things I wrote, but how would they actually know without error that I wrote this post? Even if every word (verbal) and the whole of what I write (plenary) is true without any error or infallible, they can see the truth of what I wrote, but they can never infallibly know that I wrote this post. They can observe that it is written in the first person (I am using the word "I"), they can observe many things that lead them to believe I wrote this post, but they themselves can never know this infallibly.

So, it is obvious that the infallible nature of a writing can be recognized in a fallible way. To just keep screaming (as you are doing) that this is impossible, is not logic, it is not evidence, but rather it is simple ranting. Please raise the bar in your responses some.

And so we are back to one of my first posts to you.

Now, explain your infallible source that CANNOT err, Mondar, since you claim to be "different".

Well, if you read what I have been saying, I made no such claim that there is an infallible source of transmission. Also, nowhere did I claim to be "different." All along I have said I am as fallible as anyone else, including councils and popes who err.

Are you so daft to claim that no one else can write "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ..." etc., and not see that this does not prove that PAUL HIMSELF ACTUALLY WROTE THAT...

When I put the verses in the post that claimed Pauline authorship, that was an illustration that there is "evidence." The issue is evidence. Your argument is based upon the liberal world view that Paul could not have written the epistles of Paul. In fact I am aware, that even if I went to the work of demonstrating that the internal and external evidence points to Pauls authoriship, you would reject any such evidence.

So then, the question of evidence relates to presuppositions. You presuppose that no such evidence can possibly be used to approach the NT as an infallible book unless some infallible council infallibly determines that the book is infallible. What you were really asking for was "infallible evidence." Of course as soon as I answer that question, I would be starting with your wrong presupposition. I do not believe that there is any infallible evidence. Your starting presupposition colors the way you look at the term "evidence." On the basis of your presupposition you will reject any "evidence" that I present. That is why I asked you the question... "What would you accept as evidence." You ignored the question because your presupposition does not allow for "evidence" because you require it to be infallible evidence.

The fact that Paul starts an epistle might not be evidence that you accept, but that does not mean it is not evidence. If your asking for evidence that you would accept, well, because of your presupposition, there cannot be any possible evidence.

The name of an apostle is not the only evidence. Of course any and all evidence presented can be disputed because no amount of evidence would make us to have an infallible decision.

I'm not saying that someone else did, but you are using this as internal evidence. We don't have the AUTOGRAPHS. Jeez. Are you stating that some scribe couldn't edit what he had and add in some gloss? You've already implied as much that the Church is a terrible witness and cannot even remember what they did the day before, so we should bother listening to anything they have to say.

Since you don't have the original autograph, you cannot INFALLIBLY CLAIM anything about whether Paul wrote what WE NOW CALL "Romans", or whatever, based upon internal evidence.

Sheesh.

Again, another paragraph in which you can think only in terms of infallibly knowing what is the word of God. All along I have been denying that anyone infallibly knows what books are canonical. I am amazed at how thick you presuppositions are. You cannot even begin to grasp what I am saying because you presuppositions do not allow for a fair conversation.

Notice your statement..... "Since you don't have the original autograph, you cannot INFALLIBLY CLAIM anything about whether Paul wrote what WE NOW CALL "Romans", or whatever, based upon internal evidence."
Of course we cannot "Infallibly" claim to know anything about Paul or Romans. As soon as we do, we cease speaking as protestants. You argue constantly that we cannot say we infallibly know Paul or Romans, and I constantly answer "yes, but we fallibly know Paul and Romans."

Since I do not claim infallibility, the question is actually how do you know that Paul and Romans is infallible. Now we both know why you claim that, and it is the real circular reasoning. Some denominations do claim infallibility. I do not have to defend the view that the 1689 London Baptist Confession infallibly declared what the word of God says because the 1689 LBC does not claim infallibility.

So then, I do not have to answer the question how do I "infallibly know anyting about whether Paul wrote what we now call Romans..." Thats a question you have to answer, not me. And your not getting that because of your thick presuppositions.

( Snip )

Yea, it's funny. You don't. And it is correct that you admit that you do not understand infalliblity. You have already demonstrated (and will demonstrate in a future post) that you do not understand the concept of NOT ANY CHANCE of making an error. NO CHANCE, Mondar. That rules out pretty much anything you write, doesn't it. It rules out any hope of judging another person's charecter or what they would do. Since you cannot know that without possibility of being wrong.

LOL, Francis, When I say that I understand what the term "fallible, and infallible" means I am not saying that I infallibly know what the term infallible means.

Your whole discussion has a huge glaring weakness. Lets just assume that you denomination can infallibly determine a doctrine. When it is put in writing by the curia, or council, and people read what the curia wrote, they all get different opinions on what it means. Even Roman Catholic scholars disagree on what councils were saying about some modern issue. So even if you assume that the council was infallible, what the council wrote has to be read by fallible people. You might claim that later councils clarified what earlier councils said, but that is irrelevant. At some point, people interpret what was said... fallible people.

My point here is that the whole concept of infallible councils only puts off a problem one more step.

(Snip)

Can you actually explain how a fallible person can judge that a book/letter is infallible, especially when he doesn't even have the original, NOR does he even know INFALLIBLY who wrote it???

Actually, I am not going to answer the question. As soon as I answer this question you confuse everything because of your presuppositions.

Also, the whole question reverses the burden of proof. Your the one making claims that your denomination is infallible. The burden of proof is actually upon you to demonstrate this. I do not have to demonstrate that I am fallible, or that I can know something even though I am fallible.

No, you can't. You prefer illogical arguments and such pitiful phrases as "any intelligent reader will grasp this"...

Well, your right here. I did overstep the boundaries of courteous conversation. My apologies. I will try to remain more restrained in my claims.

 

[mondar]

You can't, so end of story...

You did not even deal with the illustration I gave. Francis, do you really consider this an appropriate reply?

 

[francisdesales]

How would the mods of this forum know that what I wrote in this post is from me. If we consider what I wrote infallible, do the mods know that it infallibly came from my brain?

You continue to fail to realize that humans cannot write infallibly and recognized as such. Your analogy really makes no sense. YOU can know you wrote it, but what good is that to the mods or me - or to another person analyzing the bible from 2000 years ago??? Paul knew what he wrote, but what good is that to us, without external evidence??? The analogy has little to do with what we are talking about.

Well, if you read what I have been saying, I made no such claim that there is an infallible source of transmission. Also, nowhere did I claim to be "different." All along I have said I am as fallible as anyone else, including councils and popes who err.

I know. You have yet to adequately explain that shortcoming. You fail to make the connection to that failed recognition and realizing that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Since you deny an infallible source, you must cling to a logical fallacy of begging the question. Frankly, the problem is likely theological, since you cannot admit to the possibility of the church being an infallible witness to the Scriptures.

When I put the verses in the post that claimed Pauline authorship, that was an illustration that there is "evidence." The issue is evidence. Your argument is based upon the liberal world view that Paul could not have written the epistles of Paul. In fact I am aware, that even if I went to the work of demonstrating that the internal and external evidence points to Pauls authoriship, you would reject any such evidence.

Mondar, again, you do not understand that the bar is set to the VERY TOP for "proof" of infallibility. We aren't dealing with being 'sure' that Paul wrote it. We aren't dealing with a human certainty of knowing something.

So then, the question of evidence relates to presuppositions. You presuppose that no such evidence can possibly be used to approach the NT as an infallible book unless some infallible council infallibly determines that the book is infallible. What you were really asking for was "infallible evidence." Of course as soon as I answer that question, I would be starting with your wrong presupposition.

Your denial doesn't make it so. If there is any possibility that a fallible authority can be wrong about the contents of said infallible book, it no longer is an infallible book. This is a logical fact.

I do not believe that there is any infallible evidence.

Which is why one must turn to an infallible external source to be absolutely certain that the contents are without error. Otherwise, you are ultimately uncertain with what you have when you read the Bible. Has it occured to you that perhaps the alternate forms of Christianity may be correct? Why NOT the Gnostics? You have been conditioned your entire life to follow the Catholic Church's version of the Bible and its interpretation (for the most part) - but is that an infallible choice you have made? Familiarity doesn't make it true.

The fact that Paul starts an epistle might not be evidence that you accept, but that does not mean it is not evidence. If your asking for evidence that you would accept, well, because of your presupposition, there cannot be any possible evidence.

It is not evidence on an infallible level. I can provide a number of scenarios that would question your internal evidence that what we have was not written by the Apostle Paul.
We don't have an actual autograph. Thus, ANYONE could have written the letter and put in the opening line "Paul, a slave for Christ" etc. Are you aware that many in the ancient world did JUST THAT?
That simple FACT tells us you cannot know, without the possibility of error, that what we have is from the Apostle Paul - without a source infallibly declaring it as such.

Of course we cannot "Infallibly" claim to know anything about Paul or Romans.

So how can you avoid begging the question while stating we have an infallible writing?

Your whole discussion has a huge glaring weakness. Lets just assume that you denomination can infallibly determine a doctrine. When it is put in writing by the curia, or council, and people read what the curia wrote, they all get different opinions on what it means. Even Roman Catholic scholars disagree on what councils were saying about some modern issue. So even if you assume that the council was infallible, what the council wrote has to be read by fallible people. You might claim that later councils clarified what earlier councils said, but that is irrelevant. At some point, people interpret what was said... fallible people.

Your analogy fails because you misrepresent the doctrine of infallibility. It doesn't apply to individual's opinions or catholic scholars.

My point here is that the whole concept of infallible councils only puts off a problem one more step.

Not at all, since we have external evidence based upon people who witnessed the original writings and the original teachings of the Apostles. The only problem I can see is to claim that the Apostles themselves were wrong and that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Also, the whole question reverses the burden of proof. Your the one making claims that your denomination is infallible. The burden of proof is actually upon you to demonstrate this. I do not have to demonstrate that I am fallible, or that I can know something even though I am fallible.

Trying to turn the tables, huh?

Actually, I stated that if one follows logic to its conclusion, either "God told you the contents of the Bible" - which would be 'good enough for you' - or "an infallible authority told you the contents of the Bible". I stated that one either believes the former or the later - IF they actually take logic to its rightful conclusion. Now, most people do not, so they believe any Jim Jones charecter that comes along and place their trust in humans.

Now, since you denied both assertions from me, I have asked you to prove your "third way". Have you done so? No. And you are trying to get me to prove my beliefs, which you know full well that I am not allowed to do so in depth here. Thus, you know that I cannot fully explain myself without getting warnings from the mods. It would be much easier for YOU to address what I asked long ago and for you not to ask me to prove something that I cannot prove here.

Regards

 

[mondar]

You continue to fail to realize that humans cannot write infallibly and recognized as such. Your analogy really makes no sense. YOU can know you wrote it, but what good is that to the mods or me - or to another person analyzing the bible from 2000 years ago??? Paul knew what he wrote, but what good is that to us, without external evidence??? The analogy has little to do with what we are talking about.

Here, you compare apples and oranges. I wrote what I wrote to demonstrate that an infallible truth can be fallibly known. The truth that I wrote this post is infallible, the truth that I wrote this post is also fallibly known by the mods. This is of value to the mods, and even to you, even though you only fallibly know that I wrote this post.

25X5=625. That is truth. You can teach children that equation. Will they know that truth infallibly when it comes time to take a test? No, many will err, but that does not change the infallible truth of that equation. Infallible truths can be known fallibly.

What Paul said in Romans is infallible (just like 5X25=625). The problem is so many get those truths wrong.

Trying to turn the tables, huh?

Actually, the burden of proof is upon you. Your the one claiming that your councils and popes do not err.

Also, even if we divinely and infallibly know the exact number of books, that would not actually even solve the whole issue. There is the issue of which chapters and what verses are canonical. There is the longer ending of Mark. There is the material in John with the time Jesus wrote with his finger in the dust? What about John 4:5, or 1 John 5:7. There is possible non canonical material within each of the books. Where are all your glorious councils and popes on those issue related to canon? If the longer ending of Mark is canonical, how would you infallibly know? Oh my, what will you do then? Would you actually look at the evidence and make your own fallible decision? Of course that would contradict your proposition that infallible material cannot be known fallibly.
* No council or pope has made a decree on the issues of which scribal tradition is infallibly correct, so then you your self still cannot know the infallible scriptures infallibly. There is no Church council to determine the 300,000, to 400,000 variants found in the 5700+ manuscripts. In the end, the only think you have, is fallible evidence. We compare the Vatacanus, the Siniaticus, the Byzantine, and codex with codex. People will trained colate the uncials, the miniscules, and all different kinds of manuscripts with each other. None of them are infallible. The same thing happening today has happened for two thousand years. Its the only thing we all have, even if we refuse (like you are) to admit it. You can claim your index of the bible is infallible, but since the manuscripts themselves are not infallible, your claim falls seems shallow. If the Gospel of Mark is infallibly in the canon, then which Gospel of Mark is infallibly the Gospel of Mark that is in the canon? At some point, you have to make fallible decisions on the evidence.

Actually, I stated that if one follows logic to its conclusion, either "God told you the contents of the Bible" - which would be 'good enough for you' - or "an infallible authority told you the contents of the Bible". I stated that one either believes the former or the later - IF they actually take logic to its rightful conclusion. Now, most people do not, so they believe any Jim Jones charecter that comes along and place their trust in humans.

Now, since you denied both assertions from me, I have asked you to prove your "third way". Have you done so? No. And you are trying to get me to prove my beliefs, which you know full well that I am not allowed to do so in depth here. Thus, you know that I cannot fully explain myself without getting warnings from the mods. It would be much easier for YOU to address what I asked long ago and for you not to ask me to prove something that I cannot prove here.

Regards

hmm, good point. I am not sure what the mods would say. And yes, I recognize that it might take you a lot of words to demonstrate certain points. There is a 10,000 character limit to each post that is difficult to keep sometimes.

On the other hand, the same actually applies to me. The Gospel of John has some quite wonderful evidence of being in the canon. The Rylands fragment of papyri dates to 125 AD, maybe earlier. John is attested by Church Fathers as being authentic. Of course all this is fallible evidence. Not all Church Fathers agree, as you well know. is there evidence? Certainly! Surely you know that there is evidence. As you even mentioned yourself, there is both external evidence and internal evidence of each of the books. The books have the correct geography, and historical settings that the authors would have been familiar with. However, even if I went to the effort of working on posting the evidence with a few 100,000 characters, would you not dismiss it all with a wave of the hand because you will not allow for fallible evidence to be sufficient to know something? I am sure you would and neither of us want to play that game do we?

If we continue the conversation, I suggest we talk about the analogy more, or the issue of the copying of the manuscripts. Those two things point to a fallible understanding of what is in the canon.

 

[francisdesales]

Here, you compare apples and oranges. I wrote what I wrote to demonstrate that an infallible truth can be fallibly known. The truth that I wrote this post is infallible, the truth that I wrote this post is also fallibly known by the mods. This is of value to the mods, and even to you, even though you only fallibly know that I wrote this post.

25X5=625. That is truth. You can teach children that equation. Will they know that truth infallibly when it comes time to take a test? No, many will err, but that does not change the infallible truth of that equation. Infallible truths can be known fallibly.

What Paul said in Romans is infallible (just like 5X25=625). The problem is so many get those truths wrong.

Ha, I think you are comparing apples to orange, if I may borrow your analogy.

We both know there is a vast difference between mathematics and history and what can be regarded as UNMISTAKEABLY true. This is another ploy.

In math, we can prove theorems infallibly. We can duplicate and formulate answers and demonstrate them as absolutely correct. An equilateral triangle will always have equal angles. 5 times 25 will always equal 625.

In history, that is not the case - if we have an "infallible bar" to hurdle. If there is ANY chance of a historical item being wrong, it cannot be "infallible". Thus, ANY doubt on whether Paul wrote Romans invalidates the idea that it is infallible when looking at it internally. This is not adding 2 plus 2 apples. Who wrote Paul is not something that we can duplicate or demonstrate without possibility of error.

I fear you already know this and you do not want to admit you are in error...

Actually, the burden of proof is upon you. Your the one claiming that your councils and popes do not err.

Nice try...

Actually, no, the burden is on you to prove that you have an infallible work judged as such by an fallible authority. YOU are making that claim. That's what we have been discussing from the beginning. I didn't say popes do not err, nor did I say councils do not err. I gave two options of knowing that the Bible is infallible. You say you disagree, and then present the "fallible judge giving an infallible decision". I ask you yet again - or better yet - for the last time. Explain how this is so in a logical manner. I realize you cannot, you won't, so I won't ask again. It is enough evidence to me and the forum that you cannot back up your words and you are just grasping at straws..

As to Catholicism, you know that I cannot prove that here, so why are you asking me to? This is a Protestant website, guarded by Protestant sentinels. I will not be allowed to express any logical and common sense arguments that might tear that facade (such as sola scriptura) down. Stop asking me to do something that you know that I am not allowed to do, even if I "had to" by your concept of responsibility...

Also, even if we divinely and infallibly know the exact number of books, that would not actually even solve the whole issue. There is the issue of which chapters and what verses are canonical. There is the longer ending of Mark. There is the material in John with the time Jesus wrote with his finger in the dust? What about John 4:5, or 1 John 5:7. There is possible non canonical material within each of the books. Where are all your glorious councils and popes on those issue related to canon? If the longer ending of Mark is canonical, how would you infallibly know? Oh my, what will you do then? Would you actually look at the evidence and make your own fallible decision? Of course that would contradict your proposition that infallible material cannot be known fallibly.

How so? The Church has authoritatively said what is canonical. Jesus writing in the dust? So what, who has said that the contents of what He wrote were important to us and our faith? If they were, someone would have mentioned it, orally or in written form. Councils and popes don't rule on every conceivable issue that keeps people like you up half the night. They rule when a matter of faith or morals has been disturbed to a great degree by some heretical teaching. A guy like Marcion wanting to toss out the entire Jewish Testament. THAT'S a reason for a Council. People denying that Jesus is God. THAT'S a reason for a council. To consider a hypothetical like "what did Jesus write in the dust" and rule on it infallibly? You again clearly do not understand the idea of infallibility in the Church. It is not the Church's job to rule on what every verse could possibly mean in Scriptures. I realize that you have whittled down Christianity to a great big commentary book, but that's not how it works on this side of the fence.

So for the last time, you have denied that we can know that the Bible is infallible by the one of two ways I have described. Please explain to me how you came to that decision and explain it without appealing to logical fallacies. Who knows, maybe you'll convince me. If you refuse, that will be my cue to move on, as that is proof enough that you have no intention on discussing anything with an open mind. I didn't come here to argue ad nauseum.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Ha, I think you are comparing apples to orange, if I may borrow your analogy.

We both know there is a vast difference between mathematics and history and what can be regarded as UNMISTAKEABLY true. This is another ploy.

In math, we can prove theorems infallibly. We can duplicate and formulate answers and demonstrate them as absolutely correct. An equilateral triangle will always have equal angles. 5 times 25 will always equal 625.

In history, that is not the case - if we have an "infallible bar" to hurdle. If there is ANY chance of a historical item being wrong, it cannot be "infallible". Thus, ANY doubt on whether Paul wrote Romans invalidates the idea that it is infallible when looking at it internally. This is not adding 2 plus 2 apples. Who wrote Paul is not something that we can duplicate or demonstrate without possibility of error.

I fear you already know this and you do not want to admit you are in error...

Francis, just think about what you saying a little before posting. You raise the question of history. History has infallible truths. I can write. That is present tense. It is demonstrated by this post. Historically, I have written 100s (or more) posts in these threads. You can dispute that as a fact, but in disputing it you would do it fallibly. No matter if you dispute it, or affirm it, I did make those posts. Your fallibility has no impact on the truth that I wrote the posts. Of course history has infallible truths. Of course I also accept that we can only know many historical truths in a fallible way.

Nice try...

Actually, no, the burden is on you to prove that you have an infallible work judged as such by an fallible authority. YOU are making that claim. That's what we have been discussing from the beginning. I didn't say popes do not err, nor did I say councils do not err. I gave two options of knowing that the Bible is infallible. You say you disagree, and then present the "fallible judge giving an infallible decision". I ask you yet again - or better yet - for the last time. Explain how this is so in a logical manner. I realize you cannot, you won't, so I won't ask again. It is enough evidence to me and the forum that you cannot back up your words and you are just grasping at straws..

As to Catholicism, you know that I cannot prove that here, so why are you asking me to? This is a Protestant website, guarded by Protestant sentinels. I will not be allowed to express any logical and common sense arguments that might tear that facade (such as sola scriptura) down. Stop asking me to do something that you know that I am not allowed to do, even if I "had to" by your concept of responsibility...

Well, by the rules, you can post Roman Catholic stuff in a 1 on 1 debate. Feel free to read the rules, its right there.

And I have demonstrated that infallible truth can be known fallibly, even if you refuse to recognize it. The illustration makes it obvious.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, just think about what you saying a little before posting. You raise the question of history. History has infallible truths. I can write. That is present tense. It is demonstrated by this post. Historically, I have written 100s (or more) posts in these threads. You can dispute that as a fact, but in disputing it you would do it fallibly. No matter if you dispute it, or affirm it, I did make those posts. Your fallibility has no impact on the truth that I wrote the posts. Of course history has infallible truths. Of course I also accept that we can only know many historical truths in a fallible way.

You must be joking... How do I know you are writing those posts?

Please, get real. You call that an answer? We aren't talking about knowing something with a reasonable doubt, which is the bar historians set when making such decisions on who wrote what and whether something is a gloss, etc. We are dealing, with the Bible, a supposedly infallible SET of books, not just one. The problem is multiplied 27 times - and clearly, we don't know who even wrote half of the NT, unless we rely on someone else. If that someone else can make a mistake, then it is not infallibly certain. ANY mistake destroys the "infallibility claim".

There are so many scenarios I can introduce to cast doubt on your thesis, it's not even funny. Really. How do you even know that you are reading the "correct" Scriptures? Maybe the Romans burned the "real" ones as they rounded up Catholics in the first few centuries. Maybe Constantine's order to write 50 new copies was so he could "invent" what he wanted. I could go on and on and on...

Clearly, you are living in a fantasy world if you think such things are impossible in the realm of historical work.

Well, by the rules, you can post Roman Catholic stuff in a 1 on 1 debate. Feel free to read the rules, its right there.

And I have demonstrated that infallible truth can be known fallibly, even if you refuse to recognize it. The illustration makes it obvious.

You been sunbathing in the snow again? We aren't on the Roman Catholic debate thread, are we...

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. Every single thing you wrote I have very easily refuted with common sense.

You wrote this? That is not infallibly certain to ME or ANYONE ELSE besides you. Duh... Are you serious? Mondar, get a grip on reality.

I think we are done. You aren't going to provide me with any evidence that a FALLIBLE authority can INFALLIBLY judge anything beyond what they witnessed themselves. So you are being intellectually dishonest. You aren't about to admit you are wrong and I KNOW you aren't going to provide me any clear argument to prove your point, (because it is impossible) so why bother continuing?