[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/30/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/30/96 [21:11] A

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/30/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/30/96 [21:11] Alcuin (an153611@remote4-line39.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:11] Stevvve (shannon@ppp03.GC.PeachNet.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:11] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip06.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:13] Mode change '+o W ' by washington-r.dc.us.undernet.org [21:15] Action: Achi pints out to those involed that the op meeting is supposed to start now... [21:16] Stevvve: At the beginning of his gospel, Luke indicates to Theophilus that he will be providing information in an orderly fashion, based upon his research. That doesn't indicate anything against the NT canon. [21:17] let me read it to you again [21:17] you are leaving out parts [21:19] "so that Your Excellency may realize the reliability of the teachings in which you ahve been instructed." [21:19] vs. 4 [21:20] reliable? [21:20] Stevvve: I would recommend that you consult Philip Schaff's _Creeds of Christendom_ and Pelikan's _History of Christian Document_ as a *starting point* to investigate the particulars of "disagreement" among the ante-Nicene fathers. [21:20] what does that imply? [21:21] ummm [21:21] Stevvve: what do you imagine that it implies? [21:21] well there was a lot of disagreement with post-Nicene fathers as well [21:22] yes. Again: so? [21:23] it indicates there were other gospels about, that Luke judged....probably Mark [21:24] The *mere* fact of dissent and disagreement tells nothing about whether a correct assessment of a situation obtains. [21:24] no, but it does tell us that men were judging what would be in the canon [21:25] and not just men...Church leaders [21:26] Stevvve: It is a commonplace of NT criticism that Luke used sources (as would any good researcher) to help creation of his text. So? [21:27] And altered them, as you know NT textual critics maintain [21:27] Stevvve: You seem terribly troubled by the idea that men are involved in the process of defining the canon. Why? [21:27] I am not troubled by it at all [21:28] you dont realize i am in debate with 3 persons here [21:28] hahaha [21:35] (However, the title "most excellent" would ordinarily prefix a proper name...so it would be most unusual if the intended were not *named* Theophilus...) [21:37] Stevvve: Are you familiar with the issues that typically arise in connection with canonicity? What do you suppose are the standards by means of which a work is evaluated, when one considers whether it is or is not canonical? [21:40] what???? Since what time has serious consideration of inclusion or exclusion of a book into or out of the canon been considered? None i am aware of since the Reformation [21:42] I'm asking categorically. When is not relevant. [21:43] When IS relevant. If it hasnt been considered seriously since that time, then there are probably little written or thought out about it in lieu of recent discoveries [21:46] hmmm [21:47] Has anyone here read Gospel of Thomas? [21:52] Action: Achi wonders why everyone focuses on books that are not referenced in book IN the Bible and yet never bring up on the few that is... [21:52] Pesh (0912@ppp7.accessnet.intercom.es) joined #apologetics. [21:52] one of the that is [21:53] You don't follow these matters, do you? [21:53] Pesh (0912@ppp7.accessnet.intercom.es) left #apologetics. [21:54] [21:54] I have been asking since I entered this channel why Thomas is being considered. [21:55] instead we get off on tangents [21:55] A quick search turns up 30 titles in only the last decade on issues of New Testament canonicity.... [21:56] I mean i alsot NEVER mention the Book of Enoch yet is is one of the few book directly referenced by a conical book [21:57] canonical even [21:59] a lot of that debate focused on THomas [21:59] correct? [22:00] Likewise, a quick search turns up almost 70 works in the last decade on the Gospel of Thomas. [22:01] Action: Stevvve nods [22:01] Achi: yes, Enoch is referenced. Paul also uses non-canonical references in Acts 17. :) [22:03] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [22:07] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [22:07] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip06.csrv.uidaho.edu) got netsplit. [22:07] Stevvve (shannon@ppp03.GC.PeachNet.EDU) got netsplit. [22:07] Alcuin (an153611@remote4-line39.cis.yale.edu) got netsplit. [22:07] Achi (caan@ix-dfw14-06.ix.netcom.com) got netsplit. [22:13] W (cservice@undernet.org) got lost in the net-split. [22:13] Achi (caan@ix-dfw14-06.ix.netcom.com) got lost in the net-split. [22:13] Alcuin (an153611@remote4-line39.cis.yale.edu) got lost in the net-split. [22:13] Stevvve (shannon@ppp03.GC.PeachNet.EDU) got lost in the net-split. [22:13] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip06.csrv.uidaho.edu) got lost in the net-split. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_4_30_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank