The Catholic Bible

DojoGrant, I do not mean that he does not mention the word but that he mentions neither the word nor the concept. To him, each congregation is autonomous and the only way to prove someone or a group of people to be heretics is to expound their doctrine vs the truth. There was no central authority and no earthly head of the church in his time, or he would have appealed to him.

[ December 24, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Dojo,

Your reading of Jerome is not one that is admtted as corect by reoutable scholarship. You are, of course, welcome to your idiosyncratic, and wrong, views on the topic. The considerd opinion of those who actually know what they're talking about is against you thgough.

"You stated facts in contrast to the article, of which you did not read. If you are making an argument, on a thread, against that which is stated, you are debating it."

No, I just stated facts. Please don't puff yourself up to think that I was actually commenting on anything you said. You'll note if you go and look that I never addressed you or your article prior to your addresing me. It may be that the facts are in contrast to your article but that is incidental.

So no, I am not debating yor silly article. It is not worth of "debate". That would be givingin it, and you, more than you deserve. Which brings me to...

"Further, your attack of my intelligence does very little good here, except for the elevation of your own status. Congratulations, as I'm sure that Jesus would recommend such a thing."

I actually don't attack your intelligence but the quality of your arguments. They are pop-fluff stuff. They do not represent reputable scholarship. What this comment of yors represents is mere ad hominem. Ironic, since that means you have basically condemned yourself in your effort to condemn me.

"Futher, what knowledge do you have of my own knowledge? I happen to feel that this site does an excellent job of rectifying the situation, and I am recommending you read it. That is a basis to judge my character? I hope you're proud of yourself."

I have not judged your character. I have judged the quality of your arguments. You seem to be unable to grasp that. I appreciate that you are so taken by the site. But I am not. I read reputable scholarship on these issues, and I am not impressed by pop-apologists. That is not a comment on your character.

"That's like an atheist saying he won't be Christian because the Bible is stupid...when he has never read it. You critique work that you haven't read...on no basis whatsoever. Umm...okay."

So you compare your pop-op article to the BIBle??? Oh please!

The reality is that I am more aware than you of the issues surounding the history of canonictiy having read some major scholarly works on the topic.

A more appropriate analogy would be: it is like a political analyst refusing to discuss politcal commentary in the National Enquirer since he already reads major reputable poltical publications.

Now pay attention. You seem to think that either I readyou article or I am totally ignorant of the issues it raises. Not so. I am fully aware of them, so I CAN critique them without reference to your article. You seem to think that your article is so very important. Well, wake up! Your article is not important at all. Major schoalrly works are important. I suggest you read some. Once you do, you will be less inclined to being so overawed by such popular stuff.

"He quoted Sirach as "Scripture," not as a "writing." And you're basing this all of of one paragraph of his words, which you aren't even bothering to quote, which the author of the article posts up front and then refutes. But you don't read "junkfood" that goes against what you already beleive blindly...right?"

That you resort to such childish remarks is for me firther proof that to "debate" you would be to give you the impression that your arguments have merit. In reading actual scholarship, I have come to know (and not blindly accept, YOU are the RC remeber?) that your suggestion is incorrect. But I won't get nto detail, for, as I said, that would give you and your arguments a platform you don't deserve.

"You say you're right, and I'm wrong. Thus, you have claimed victory. And by not reading the text and yet dismissing it, you show your lack of scholarship by refuting text you have not written, for you feel you are an elevated scholar of some sort. Again, congratulations to you."

These efforts of yours to make it seemlike I am adressing you or anything you have said is silly. I have not claimed a vioctory. To do so I would have to be in a "conflict" of some kind. And as I have said, I am not in one.

This isn't about me. The more you attempt to make this about personalitis rather than facts, and the more you try to draw me in, convinces me that I am right to not give your ideas a platform.

"You mislabel something you have not read. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I know the issues. I have read real scholars. I know from that experience that the ideas you put forward are promulgated only in pop-apolgetics. I don't have to actually see the garbage to recognise the smell.

"You're taking one quote from Jerome and applying it to his whole life. Heck, you haven't even quoted him. Further, you refuse to read the text which shows the variation in meaning to the word "canon." Your argument is moot since you won't acknowledge the things of which I'm arguing."

I told you I am not debating you, so no, I have not quoted Jerome. And, again, I am aware of the issues. I have read real scholars on the issue. They say you're wrong. And since you are unaware of THOSE arguemnts, then your claim is moot.

"More vain judging of my character, of which you know nothing about. You've proven nothing but your own pride in this silly discourse."

I haven't judged your character. I have judged your arguments. And they are strictly amateur night stuff. They obviosly appeal to you. In my experience, those raken in by such arguments are unlikely to bother with reading actual scholarly works. If I am proven wrong in your case, so much the better: you'll have read the facts and found your position to be baseless.

Have I proven anything? No. But then I didn't set out to prove anything. I simply stated some facts. You obviously find that objectionable. That's your problem, not mine.

Now let me make this clear. I have not, am not, and will not discuss your article. It simply isn't worth my time. I am aware of the issues it raises, having heard this stuff before. I am also aware of what scholars have to say. Where appropriate I wil point out the scholarly opinion.