KJVOist, 66 Book Onlyists, Hebrew Onlyists and the like.

[FSSL]

Shallow? Really? You try to establish your choice of canon via inspiration and then deny it... That's dispictable!!!

You clearly appealed to Paul's words to say the canon was inspired. That is what you did. Even child knows you did..... Don't be dishonest to protect your failure to defend your beliefs.

The process of the canon is not inspired. Books are individually inspired. The word canon refers to both the process of collecting and the collection of the inspired books. There is no dishonesty on my part. You fail to try to understand the difference.

Surely, with all of the years of study on canonical issues, you have run across the active and passive ideas of canonicity.

Two of my foundational sources for understanding canonicity issues has been:
1) Geisler & Nix
2) Volume 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. pages 629 ff. One of the best treatments of the canon.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Shallow? Really? You try to establish your choice of canon via inspiration and then deny it... That's dispictable!!!

You clearly appealed to Paul's words to say the canon was inspired. That is what you did. Even child knows you did..... Don't be dishonest to protect your failure to defend your beliefs.

The process of the canon is not inspired. Books are individually inspired. The word canon refers to both the process of collecting and the collection of the inspired books. There is no dishonesty on my part. You fail to try to understand the difference.

Surely, with all of the years of study on canonical issues, you have run across the active and passive ideas of canonicity.

Two of my foundational sources for understanding canonicity issues has been:
1) Geisler & Nix
2) Volume 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. pages 629 ff. One of the best treatments of the canon.

Okay. Wessel away from it... You're backdooring "inspiration" into your choice of collections. No ifs and or buts. You can try and split it up.....and say you're not, but you are... I don't know how to deal with such dishonesty.

You're using KJVOist tactics and pretending you're not. They insert inspiration into their translation the exact same way. They appeal to the inspiration of the texts and extend it to their translation. You appeal to the inspiration of the text and extend it your choice in the collection.

I'm tired of your dishonesty.

By the way.... You haven't used a single "Geisler & Nix" method to establish your answer. Not one. I don't believe you. If you really know "Geisler & Nix".... then your purposely being vague about it.

I'm done going in circles with you!!

 

[FSSL]

The dishonesty card gets kind of old.

"The word kanon was applied to the Bible in both an active and a passive sense: one in which it was the canon or standard, and the other in which it was canonized or recognized to be canonical by the church." Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible (Rev. and expanded., p. 204). Chicago: Moody Press.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So far, his only answer has been, "I have supernatural knowledge of the fact that you haven't read as much as I have."

You thought my logic of James was my own opinion. You were not familiar with the thought EVENTHOUGH it is prolific in the commentaries.

Your post proved your lack of information.

No, my post expressed how stupid that explanation is.  Are you going ALAYMAN on us now?  "I found it in these commentaries, therefore it's true."

 

[praise_yeshua]

The dishonesty card gets kind of old.

Truth never gets old....

"The word kanon was applied to the Bible in both an active and a passive sense: one in which it was the canon or standard, and the other in which it was canonized or recognized to be canonical by the church." Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible (Rev. and expanded., p. 204). Chicago: Moody Press.

"In the active sense, the Bible is the canon by which all else is to be judged"......

Don't selectively quote Geisler....

You have been dealing with the active application. You haven't said anything about the passive application. You've refused to do so. Thus my argument you really don't know Geisler...

 

[FSSL]

You have been dealing with the active application. You haven't said anything about the passive application. You've refused to do so. Thus my argument you really don't know Geisler...

When you asked, "What canonical list was 'God Breathed'?" You clouded the discussion.

I have difficulty following you.

 

[FSSL]

No, my post expressed how stupid that explanation is.  Are you going ALAYMAN on us now?  "I found it in these commentaries, therefore it's true."

You claim to be an expert on the book of James and we found out you have not read even the basic info.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You have been dealing with the active application. You haven't said anything about the passive application. You've refused to do so. Thus my argument you really don't know Geisler...

When you asked, "What canonical list was 'God Breathed'?" You clouded the discussion.

I have difficulty following you.

Okay. I'm the problem.....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

No, my post expressed how stupid that explanation is.  Are you going ALAYMAN on us now?  "I found it in these commentaries, therefore it's true."

You claim to be an expert on the book of James and we found out you have not read even the basic info.

Please find for me in this quote where I claim to be an expert on James:

There are other issues with James.  I find it odd how little he refers to Jesus in the book and never mentions his relationship.  I find it odd that he's concerned about rich people attending a meeting and getting special treatment, which wasn't likely to be an issue at the time James was supposed to be written.  I find it odd that he uses Job as an example of suffering and not Jesus.  And then there's his insistence that one follow every element of the law or else be guilty of breaking all of it, which excludes mercy and grace.  There's more, but that's enough to make a strong case against James.

You're the one who keeps implying you're the expert because "I read commentaries, and I assume you didn't read them, so I'm smart and right and you're stupid and wrong".  That has been the crux of your argument from the beginning.  Next time you criticize PY for treating people who disagree with him like morons, remember you've been doing the same thing, only more politely.

 

[FSSL]

You mocked a standard, well-known argument in favor of James, Jesus' brother without knowing that it was a common argument.

If you think you have a strong case, and there is more you can say, at least don't show a lack of knowledge of the basics.

The argument goes all the way back to the early church fathers.

Sorry for making you feel stupid and wrong.

 

[FSSL]

When you asked, "What canonical list was 'God Breathed'?" You clouded the discussion.

Okay. I'm the problem.....

Why ask the question that way? I know of NOONE that ever thinks canonical lists are inspired. We don't even think that way.

The process of canonicity is not inspired. The people involved in developing the lists were not "moved along by the Holy Spirit" (oops! bad habit... I have to quit quoting Scripture you reject).

 

[praise_yeshua]

When you asked, "What canonical list was 'God Breathed'?" You clouded the discussion.

Okay. I'm the problem.....

Why ask the question that way? I know of NOONE that ever thinks canonical lists are inspired. We don't even think that way.

The process of canonicity is not inspired. The people involved in developing the lists were not "moved along by the Holy Spirit" (oops! bad habit... I have to quit quoting Scripture you reject).

So you don't remember quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 in reference to the discussion? I do. I'd find it if the forum search would work. It doesn't work.

Question.... Is is okay to question the canon and make another choice? If not, then why not?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You mocked a standard, well-known argument in favor of James, Jesus' brother without knowing that it was a common argument.

If you think you have a strong case, and there is more you can say, at least don't show a lack of knowledge of the basics.

The argument goes all the way back to the early church fathers.

Sorry for making you feel stupid and wrong.

Its not a common argument and there is more than one to choose from. You're being obtuse and purposely vague. You then "pounce" when someone can't make out what you're talking about.

 

[FSSL]

So you don't remember quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 in reference to the discussion? I do. I'd find it if the forum search would work. It doesn't work.

I may have to move the forum into new software. Or, try to do a remote forum and test it.

Question.... Is is okay to question the canon and make another choice? If not, then why not?

I don't. I have not run across a book among the 66 that lacks. I have translated Amos. It is an awesome book. Peter.. What a great couple of books. Why? Because they are God's word.

I would have said "ALL Scripture is God-breathed..." I believe all 66 books are inspired. That is different than saying the list is inspired.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So you don't remember quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 in reference to the discussion? I do. I'd find it if the forum search would work. It doesn't work.

I may have to move the forum into new software. Or, try to do a remote forum and test it.

Question.... Is is okay to question the canon and make another choice? If not, then why not?

I don't. I have not run across a book among the 66 that lacks. I have translated Amos. It is an awesome book. Peter.. What a great couple of books. Why? Because they are God's word.

I would have said "ALL Scripture is God-breathed..." I believe all 66 books are inspired. That is different than saying the list is inspired.

So... whomever made the choice.... made a perfect decision?

I feel like I'm talking to a KJVOist trying to defend his "perfect" choice....

I asked if it was okay for someone to make a different choice. Don't cower. Be bold and answer the simplest of questions.

 

[FSSL]

It all depends on how they come to their decision. If, like one of my profs thought, the Laodicean letter was found, he believes it could be scripture. A bit problematic, but not heresy.

If someone, for example, says they don't believe that Paul is an apostle and they reject Paul's writings on that basis... they are at best, foolish... and very well could be heretics.

The canon is only, properly, made up of those books that are inspired. There has been quite a bit of fuzziness of positions on this forum recently.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It all depends on how they come to their decision. If, like one of my profs thought, the Laodicean letter was found, he believes it could be scripture. A bit problematic, but not heresy.

If someone, for example, says they don't believe that Paul is an apostle and they reject Paul's writings on that basis... they are at best, foolish... and very well could be heretics.

The canon is only, properly, made up of those books that are inspired. There has been quite a bit of fuzziness of positions on this forum recently.

Nothing has been fuzzy at all.

No one said anything about the letter to Laodicea. How about James? Does that qualify me for the heretic slot?

 

[FSSL]

Just like Martin Luther, you are in error. I don't call people heretics unless they deny God.

Nothing is fuzzy? The idea that you reject books as inspired BUT still want them in the canon is ridiculously fuzzy.

I can imagine a "Thru the Bible Study with PY in less than a year or even less if we stumble across something on the way."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Just like Martin Luther, you are in error. I don't call people heretics unless they deny God.

Nothing is fuzzy? The idea that you reject books as inspired BUT still want them in the canon is ridiculously fuzzy.

I can imagine a "Thru the Bible Study with PY in less than a year or even less if we stumble across something on the way."

I beginning to think you're rsca. Is that your forum sock?

Can Ransom attest to the fact you're not really rsca?

Luther keep James in the disputed section of his "collection". Maybe you forgot that..... I would do something similar. I'm in good company. I have no desire to conform to whatever it is you think.... might be right.

Oh by the way.... You have said that Mater might belong in the heretic category. You then say it depends on denying God???

I do believe "James" was right when he spoke of a "double minded" man.

 

[FSSL]

I know about Luther's "epistle of straw" and mentioned his reluctance to include it as part of the canon. He was wrong.

Mater may be simply a fool when it comes to rejecting Paul's writings. I reserve "heretic" for Avery-types