Interesting News article

Clint this seems to be a variation on the normal qualifications that I have heard from other Baptists concerning Scripture.

Is not the normal qualification that New Testament Scripture must have been written by an Apostle, not simply an eyewitness from the Apostolic age.

Also, aren't there are other protogospels written by Apostles that are not included in Scripture? What would be your basis for rejecting such a gospel?

Ron

 

Hi Ron -

I'm not sure that I am qualified to answer your question without doing some research on the subject. The "Gospel" is an account of the life of Christ, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. James is an Epistle which is a Letter written after the Ressurection to early churches, either individually or generally.

I phrased my statement this way because I specifically had the Book of Hebrews in mind. The author never indentifies himself. Tradition says that Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews but it does not follow his usual style, i.e. greeting, writing style, signature, etc. There is nothing in Hebrews that contradicts the theology inherent in the rest of the Bible and the quality of the text is without question. many modern scholars theorize that Appolos may have been the author. Whoever he was, he knew Hebrew theology inside out.

We can surmise that the Book of Hebrews was written before 70 AD because we read of the sacrifices in the Temple being spoken of in present tense. This puts it in the correct time frame. The last Book of the Bible, chronologically and in text, is Revelation, being dated at no later than 95 AD.

Another example of writings that are respected but not viewed as canoniacal from this time frame would be those of Josephus. His historical writings are of great benefit to scholars for confirmation but hold no real theological merit, neither for the Catholics or the non-catholics.

 

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "One reason is that the name of Mary's father as given in the Protoevangelium of James (Ioacim) contradicts the name of Mary's father as recorded by Luke (Heli)"

You are incorrect. "Heli" is recorded by Luke as Joseph's father, not Mary's father (Lk 3:23).

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "Because the Apocryphal Gospels are second century documents. The author of this text that you present in your link is not authentically written by James, the brother of Jesus.

Scripture does not have to be written by an apostle to be Scripture.

The following quote is from "An Introduction to the New Testament" of the Anchor Bible Reference Library, p. 10:

"The Christian compositions we have been discussing, most likely written between the years 50 and 150, were not only preserved but eventually deemed uniquely sacred and authoritative ... Letters not physically written by Paul, Peter, and James could become very important because they were written in the name, spirit, and authority of the apostles ... Nevertheless, apostolic origin was not an absolute criterion for either preservation or acceptance."

The actual Letter of James was written around 50 - 60 AD, written by an actual eyewitness from the Apostolic age.

In the same work cited above (p. 276), James is dated in the range of 70 to 110 A.D. if the epistle is pseudonymous, which it very may well be.

The Apocrypha is not recognized as Scripture. At best, they are legends.

You are correct; they are not recognized as Scripture. But, this failure of recognition requires a subject to deny the Scriptural identity of the epistle. And, this subject is the Church. The Church does not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture, and so it is not Scripture.

Their authenticity is more than questionable, it is false. James would have been over 120 years old at the earliest opportunity of this writing.

And if this work is pseudonymous, then it was not written by James, yet remains Scripture because the Church recognizes it as such.

They were written to fill an agenda.

Of course they were. Every inspired text of the New Testament was written to fill an agenda.

Even the Catholic Church does not recognize the Apocryphal gospels as canonized

Exactly. Because the Catholic Church doesn't recognize the Apocrypha, such texts are Apocrypha. If the Church did recognize them as Scripture, then they would be Scripture. I think you're on to something Clint.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 26, 2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Let's see if anyone else picked up on the talk of fallacious argumentation from earlier today. Carson's post from 9:10 PM is full of them. Anyone want to try picking them out?

I see examples of:
[*] Ad Hominem
[*] Appeal To Authority
[*] Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People) That's a new one for today but certainly not unique to this forum!
[*] Argument By Generalization
[*] Proving the negative
[*] Package deal

Have you ever seen me make any assertions on the origin of Scripture, Carson, outside of this thread in my last post? Have you ever seen me quote KJV? Your preaching is your normal route of generalizing all Baptists together. You're far more of a proselytizer than an apolgist, sir. It's more than obvious that that is your sole intent on this board.

Now, do you have any canonized Scripture from which you can present a case for the enduring virginity of Mary? Or perhaps you'd like to present a post that does not use fallacious argumentation.

 

Nonesense!

The content of the Letter shows that the audience was in its early stages of forming the church and that the audience is primarily Jewish. It reflects a very simplistic church order in which the officers of the church are called "elders" and "teachers." There is no mention of the controversy surrounding Gentile circumcision, a huge issue once the evangelism to the Gentiles began. The meeting place of the church is termed the "synagaogue."

With the possible exception of Galatians, James is likely the oldest Epistle in the New Testament.

[ October 26, 2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Hi Clint,

You asked, "do you have any canonized Scripture from which you can present a case for the enduring virginity of Mary?"

Yes, I have repeated Jerome's argument from Scripture above.

Do you have any canonized Scripture from which you can present a case for your canon of Scripture?

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Clint,

I'm citing a fairly recent scholarly work with a copyright of 1997. Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament, Emeritus of Princeton Theological Seminary says this about "An Introduction to the New Testament", "Once again Raymond Brown has written a magnum opus ... a monumental piece of scholarship that speaks to experts and novices alike. If a person could own only one book on the New Testament, this is the one to have."

Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Judaeo-Christian Studies at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio, says, "this is the premier text where I'll be directing my students for a fair weighing of the evidence ... scholarship not measuring up to [Brown's] probling questions and reasoned responses may not be good scholarship at all!"

You wrote, "With the possible exception of Galatians, James is likely the oldest Epistle in the New Testament."

"An Introduction to the New Testament" tells us on p. 457 that "The oldest preserved Christian document" is Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians, which was written in "50 or 51 in the Traditional Chronology, during Paul's Second Missionary journey". It then places Galatians after 1 Thessalonians with a date of 54-55 from Ephesus.

And just for your information, it then dates Revelation between 92 and 96 at the end of the Emperor Domitian's reign; it dates 2 Peter between 120 and 140 A.D.; and it tells us that many scholars date Jude between 90 and 100 A.D.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 26, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Nope, comes by faith.

As to the last post concerning the Epistle of James, does the Fransiscan school up there in Ohio support the liberal teachings of the dating of the New Testament Scriptures you espouse? If they do, is the Vatican aware of these teachings? They are certainly not supported by the texts themselves! Your parents must be aghast!

You are again using an appeal to authority in citing the text you do. It is evidence at best, but non-conclusive. Here is atext that backs up my claim, evidential, but not conclusive:

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/expostudy/james.htm

[ October 26, 2002, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "Nope, comes by faith."

What are you speaking about?

As to the last post concerning the Epistle of James, does the Fransiscan school up there in Ohio support the liberal teachings of the dating of the New Testament Scriptures you espouse? If they do, is the Vatican aware of these teachings? They are certainly not supported by the texts themselves! Your parents must be aghast!

Actually, Clint, it is a Catholic priest who authored the work that I'm citing from. He's a monumental scholar respected across the board: Raymond E. Brown, S.S. (Sulpician). The Text has both a Nihil obstat (Myles M. Bourke, S.T.D., S.S.L.) and an Imprimatur (Patrick J. Sheridan, D.D. - Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York).

You are again using an appeal to authority in citing the text you do. It is evidence at best, but non-conclusive.

And you aren't appealing to an authority yourself? And your evidence is conclusive?

Blessings,

Carson

 

Please, everyone, do not allow Carson's strawman to pull any of you away from presenting authoratative textual evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Say, Carson, what does the scholarly world of Bruce M. Metzger say about ANY virginity surrounding Mary? After all, the knowledge of men... 1Corinthians 1:20; 8:11.

 

But we have both begun with the presupposition that Scripture is authoratative. That's the difference. Actually, I am beginning to wonder if we DO both hold that position now!

Also, the "what am I talking about" I added in an edit. I thought I'd get in my post so that it flowed behind your question from your post of 12:15. My mistake.

 

You need not quote liberal "scholars" to us who would rather tear down the Bible than believe it. Peter was martyered approximately 67 A.D., and you are going to believe that his epistle was written between 120-140 A.D.?
DHK

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "But we have both begun with the presupposition that Scripture is authoratative.

Your statement that I quote above is in response to my question, "And you aren't appealing to an authority yourself?", which is a response to your statement, "You are again using an appeal to authority in citing the text you do.", which does not refer to Scripture.

your bro in Christ,

Carson

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "You need not quote liberal "scholars" to us who would rather tear down the Bible than believe it. Peter was martyered approximately 67 A.D., and you are going to believe that his epistle was written between 120-140 A.D.?"

Raymond E. Brown died a believing Catholic priest, DHK. And, as I've said above in a post directed towards Clint, Scripture does not have to be authored by an apostle to be authoritative. I'm also not naive enough to believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter.

Do you really think that employing the adjective "liberal" to what I've quoted will discredit this summation of contemporary scholarship?

Blessings,

Carson

 

If we both accept something as authoratative, it goes without saying in the debate. Example: gravity exist. We both agree. I do not have to prove that an apple hits the ground when it falls off of the tree. You say gravity is stronger at the poles than the equator. We disagree. Proof must be presented.

If your instructor, Scott Hahn, whom you are forever promoting on this site, is half the apologist the catholics claim him to be, show him this thread and ask him to point out the fallacious arguments. I'm sure he can explain it to you.

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "Please, everyone, do not allow Carson's strawman to pull any of you away from presenting authoratative textual evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity"

You still haven't responded to my original presentation of the Scriptural foundation behind Mary's perpetual virginity as proposed by Jerome in his Treatise.

"Say, Carson, what does the scholarly world of Bruce M. Metzger say about ANY virginity surrounding Mary?"

Changing the subject?

yours,

Carson

 

Nope, bringing it back on course. Isn't that obvious?

 

If Brown died believing Catholicism rather than Christ, that is truly unfortunate. If your scholarship is so liberal as to believe that Peter did not write his own epistles (or at least dictate them), that also is unfortunate. Perhaps that is the reason you would not have the Scripture as your final authority. You really don't believe it is authoritative.
DHK

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "If we both accept something as authoratative, it goes without saying in the debate.

(NB: "authoratative" is correctly spelled "authoritative")

I accept Scripture as authoritative, but I do not limit the deposit of divine revelation to Scripture, so I am not bound to "prove" that my doctrine is explicitly set forth in Scripture. The other source I rely upon is Tradition, and Scripture norms Tradition. You, Clint, do not accept Tradition (even when it is normed by Scripture - for instance, in the case of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary), so we do not hold to the same authority in the case of the deposit of divine revelation.

Hence, your premise is faulty in this regard.


If your instructor, Scott Hahn, whom you are forever promoting on this site, is half the apologist the catholics claim him to be, show him this thread and ask him to point out the fallacious arguments. I'm sure he can explain it to you.

Clint, if you want to make an argument, make it. Get back to the topic at hand and stop presenting tangents that have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. This way of belittling your opponents is really fallacious and quite ineffective. You, as a moderator and advocate of avoiding fallacious argumentation, should foremost avoid this useless persiflage.

God bless you,

Carson

[ October 26, 2002, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi DHK,

Your post, "If Brown died believing Catholicism rather than Christ, that is truly unfortunate." is not only uncharitable, but untrue. I hope and pray that you will learn to treat disciples of Christ that devote their entire lives to his Holy Writ with more respect and charity.

If your scholarship is so liberal as to believe that Peter did not write his own epistles (or at least dictate them)

That is to assume that Peter wrote 2 Peter to begin with.

Perhaps that is the reason you would not have the Scripture as your final authority. You really don't believe it is authoritative.

How would my holding to the pseudoauthorship of 2 Peter be the cause of my rejection of this epistle as authoritative? Also, one can regard Scripture as authoritative while also not holding Scripture as one's final authority. To disallow for this distinction would be to impose your Protestant categories upon Catholics.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 26, 2002, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]