Roman Catholicism

The "JimmJoeJ" Saga

by James White

UPDATED SEPTEMBER, 2001.  See bottom of page for details.
UPDATED APRIL, 2002.  See bottom of page for  even more details.

James C. (he has asked that his last name be withheld) is a Roman Catholic seminary student, or so he claims.   I believe I first encountered him in AOL under the screen name JIMMYJOEJ.  I would often find him in chat rooms asking the same questions about sola scriptura.   Eventually, I learned, most people just put him on their ignore list, as it was obvious, after a while, that he had no intention of ever hearing any answer that was provided to him.

Eventually Mr. C. began appearing in our chat room, ProsApologian.  It didn't take him long to get himself banned, as our ops have no interest in folks hanging around who only have one subject to raise, one issue to discuss.   It didn't take long for Mr. C. to begin sneaking in under his ban.  He was also banned from about every channel I know except for #apologetics.  He was especially angry since he was banned from a channel called #charis.  Of course, the #charis rules explicitly say that only conservative evangelicals are welcome to fellowship there, and Mr. C. does not fit in that category.

Mr. C. even called into our radio program.  You can hear his call by clicking here.  As you will see, he still only has one topic to address.

Since that time, James C. has snuck under our bans with different nicks and different hostmasks at least 20 times.  He has boasted that he has friends who will help him to do the same thing.  He has lost all balance, and has become like his predecessors, the Crusaders, who took up sword and shield for "mother Church."

One of his constant claims is that he has been banned because no one can answer his questions.  I'm sure that in his mind, that is true.  However, the facts are very different.  We have talked with Mr. C. over and over again.   Aside from the radio program noted above, we  believe that the AOL IM I received in the April 17th program was likewise sent, if not by Mr. C. personally, at least at his behest.  And, to document this beyond question, below we provide two logs of discussions with Mr. C.  The first is from September of 1998.  Notice that this was after his first banning.  He is going under a different nick, and is rather proud at the end of the conversation to identify himself.   The second log came from June of 1999.  As you will see, Mr. C. may not like our replies, but it is simply dishonest for him to say that we have not, in fact, responded to him.  Finally, between these two logs we provide a short section of a long conversation that took place in the channel with Mr. C. when James White was not present, this being in April of 1999.  You will note that Mr. C., upon being asked if this was the first time he had been in the channel, says "yes," but, later, gleefully confesses who he really is.

Since posting this material, Mr. C. has seemingly been delighted that he has received this attention.  Indeed, in another IRC channel he asserted, "<Philios> JAY its an honor actually; it shows that he considers me as someone who has arguments and points that must be responded to and attacked."  Mr. C. does not seem to understand why we put this material here: it has been his assertion that we have failed to respond to him, and have banned him because we cannot answer his questions.  Not only have we done so, but the following material proves, beyond all question, that Mr. C. has no integrity, no personal honesty.  He has lied, repeatedly, and if he can't see that this is a serious thing, we can only pray that God will open his eyes.

The following conversation took place 9/29/98 in our chat channel:

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-217-97.ipt.aol.com) has joined #prosapologian

* Nina^`^ says1 HiYa to Joseph!

<Ortho> Yo, Jo.

<Joseph> Hello NINA

<Aleta> Hi, Joseph :-)

<Joseph> Hello ORTHO

<Joseph> Hi Aleta

<Joseph> ORTHO I was looking at your book the Roman Catholic Controversy and had a question on sola scriptura

<Ortho> Shoot, Joseph.

* Ortho bangs on his on-line spell checker. "Darn thing never works."

<Joseph> In your book by your definition of sola scriptura, it speaks of how we get bible truth not only from what its words say but by what it "necessarily implies". This seems to be a problem to me since we have no one human authority we can objectively listen to who can authoritatively say what exactly the bible necessarily implies. It seems that with countless different opinions on WHAT the bible is teaching, it seems sola scriptura rests not on i

<Joseph> WHAT is necessarily implied

<Ortho> The Trinity is the classic example of necessary implication.

<Ortho> As to "countless different opinions," well, I'm not so sure about that.

<Ortho> If you were to remove all the "opinions" that fall in the following categories, how many would I really have left?

<Ortho> 1) Those founded upon pure ignorance. 2) Those founded upon the insertion of traditions that are not biblical. 3) Those founded upon defective views of Scripture.

<Joseph> ORTHO but who said it was necessarily implied? It wasn't sola scriptura but church councils and theologians coming to understanding as to WHAT exactly was necessarily implied We know the biblical truth of the trinity is orthodox belief because the church decided what was necessarily implied NOT by the believer following sola scriptura

<Ortho> Totally disagree, Joseph.

<Ortho> I'm sitting here correcting the galleys of my book on the Trinity. I never once have to rely upon a "church council" to define, and defend, the Trinity in this book.

<Ortho> The point is that the doctrine is plainly biblical, even if the *term* is not.

<Adelphos`> whoa, really! how did the Church come to the conclusion of the Trinity?

<Joseph> ORTHO your categories show the same problem It is our opinion as to which "opinions" fall into those categories

<Ortho> No, Joseph, the categories are perfectly logical. Very few of the differences that exist are due to sola scriptura; the VAST majority are due to a failure to apply sola scriptura.

<Ortho> Would you not agree that ignorance is the single greatest contributor to such differences?

<Joseph> ORTHO by necessary implication of what the bible teaches. But we know that it is what the bible necessarily implies because the church has said it, not because it is our own conclusion from bible alone

<Joseph> ORTHO yes ignorance IS! And who decides who is ignorant on what bible necessarily implies and who isn't?

<Ortho> No, that's not true, Joseph. Even the early Fathers did not make that claim.

<Nina^`^> Joseph and who told you that the church was in authority over scripture?

<Ortho> Well, Joseph, it seems you are looking for some way to "get rid of" all disagreement. I don't believe any way exists, as I don't believe God has deemed it necessary to do so.

<Joseph> ORTHO so to be guided in truth by the bible alone then we don't need to know for sure what the bible alone teaches?

<Ortho> In fact, the Bible teaches that the Church would struggle throughout its existence. Hence, if you are looking for some "person" or "group" to banish all doubt and disagreement, you can find plenty who will apply for the job, but I don't believe any one of them will lead you closer to the truth.

<Ortho> Know for sure, or infallibly? I don't know the exhaustive teachings of the Bible. I don't have infallible knowledge of what the Bible teaches on *any* subject. But I do have *sufficient* knowledge of what the Bible teaches on the *central* subjects. The difference between infallibility and sufficiency is vitally important to recognize.

<Joseph> So then you would say there is NO church today that is the pillar of truth - that if the church upholds it it must be true since a pillar of truth cannot uphold a lie

<Ortho> The longing for the "infallible fuzzies," to be honest, shows a level of immaturity on the part of those seeking after them.

<Ortho> I never said such a thing, of course.

<Ortho> Where did I?

<Ortho> The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Scripture so says. Where have I said otherwise?

<Joseph> ORTHO but you are left with your opinion on what are central subjects and then again left with your opinion on what the bible teaches on what you call those central subjects

-Nina^`^- gee do we attend a "pillar of truth " church or not;)

<Ortho> Well, Joseph, it seems you have set up an interesting dichotomy: either you have nothing but one's "personal opinion," or you have an infallible magisterium. Might there just possibly be something in between?

<Ortho> It seems that you also believe that the Word is so unclear, so muddled, that all it can give you is an "opinion"?

<Joseph> ORTHO you did say no group would lead me closer to truth You have in your books taken the emphasis off the church in that verse emphasizing that it is the TRUTH that the church is supposed to teach and taking emphasis off that if the church is the pillar of truth it can NOT uphold a lie

<Joseph> ORTHO no because the church can tell us what is biblical truth If someone were speaking Russian it would be unclear and muddled to me until I had an interpreter who could tell me for sure what was truly said

<Ortho> I said that no group that claims infallible authority over Scripture will lead you to the truth; I have taken not a wit of emphasis off of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have, however, said that Rome is not that Church, and that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, listens to the voice of Her Lord, and never competes with Him.

<Ortho> Fascinating example, Joseph. The Bible is so unclear it is like listening to someone speaking in Russian? Wow.

<Adelphos`> Augustine (354-430): 18. Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,-how accessible it is to all men,

<Joseph> ORTHO however in Protestantism we have no one "church" upholding one truth but many divided groups disagreeing on what that truth actually is You have said what the church is NOT (Rome) but you have not said what that church IS! Where then today is that church which if they uphold a doctrine we can rest upon it as the truth?

<Ortho> Nor, of course, is Rome "united" in speaking one truth, so that's hardly relevant.

<Ortho> I believe the Church is found where the Word is given its proper place.

<Ortho> And I know of many local bodies where that Church meets rather regularly.

<Ortho> BTW, Joseph, were you in a few nights ago with a fellow named TomServo2?

<Joseph> It IS united of course but that response hardly answers the question And so we are left with your belief and opinion as to where the Word is given its proper place. There are MANY churches claiming to give the Word its proper place and yet they disagree among themselves on exactly what that truth is

<Ortho> To which I can only say, "Yes, so?

<Ortho> The same situation prevailed in the days of the Apostle Paul, remember?

<Joseph> To which I can only say "yes, so?"

<Ortho> You again seem to think that God has promised to crush all heresies. He hasn't.

<Ortho> Nor has He determined to make all Christians look identical to each other. Again, so?

<Ortho> If I had encountered the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers, I would have had to have made a decision about who was correct, right?

<Adelphos`> For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book Two

<Joseph> ORTHO no the same situation did NOT prevail We should know what ARE heresies and what AREN'T In Paul's day we can see the Council of Jerusalem authoritatively deciding what is to be done regarding Judaizers NOT saying to all that they should read scripture and follow what is necessarily implied

<Ortho> Your problem is that the Council of Jerusalem is not extra-Scriptural. Acts 15 is part of the Scriptures. What is more, why do you insist upon operating on these false dichotomies, when I've pointed out your error a number of times already?

<Ortho> The Church can have authority without being INFALLIBLE. If you say otherwise, please prove it.

* Ortho has to pick up his kids now.

<Joseph> In Paul's day we have a united visible church authority teaching what is to be believed regarding faith Yes you still have decision on who to listen to but you know what the Judaizers say and you know what the authoritative voice of the ONE CHURCH says You don't have to listen to

<Joseph> a number of churches claiming they are authoritative but not infallible

<Ortho> Yeah, yeah. I've got to run, but one question: why say you have questions about my book, when the truthful thing would be to honestly say, "I'm a Roman Catholic, and I think you are wrong, and here is why"?

*** Ortho is now known as Orthaway

<Orthaway> Back in about half an hour.....

<Joseph> ORTHO I had questions regarding your view

<Nina^`^> see ya bro

<Joseph> I thought your view was wrong but was willing to ask

<Joseph> You can't say now at least that I'm attacking a straw man

<Joseph> Well got to get to benediction See you all later

<Nina^`^> bye joe

* Nina^`^ says1 HiYa to justrozie!

<Joseph> Hope you guys didn't mind the back and forth there

<Nina^`^> nope not at all

<Joseph> God bless

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-217-97.ipt.aol.com) has left #prosapologian

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-223-206.ipt.aol.com) has joined #prosapologian

<Orthreads> Nina: Wowsers.

<Appollos> ANd he consistently commits fallacies of relevance

<Appollos> Well at least he is consistent about something

<Nina^`^> orth ..its wild aint it ..lol

<Orthreads> App: That was one of his best efforts, actually.

<Orthreads> Importing guillotines. Oh my.

* Orthreads notes that he and Nina are in another channel together, and it's, uh, well, interesting. :)

<Nina^`^> orth, gee i missed that story ;)

<Joseph> Too bad I can't stay around any longer I was dying to hear who consistently commits fallacies of relevance ... even though it was one of his best efforts

<Orthreads> Gerry Matatics, specifically.

<Orthreads> Why didn't you ask?

<Joseph> Didn't want to interrupt the conversation

<Joseph> Thought you were engrossed in #bible

<Orthreads> Well, Appollos had noted the errors in Matatics' presentation, having just listened to the debate on sola scriptura from Long Island.

<Orthreads> Did you wish to say something, Joseph?

<Orthreads> It's been all over the map, cunninham.

<Joseph> HAving been also accused of being "irrelevant" whenver I make a point, I'm quite flattered to hear Matatics is accused of the same

<Orthreads> What are you talking about, Joseph?

*** Orthreads is now known as Ortho

<Joseph> I refer to "yes, so?" translation "so?" means "so what, its irrelevant" Am also accused of bringing up "superficial" arguments

<Ortho> Oh, yes, you are correct, Joseph. You were bringing up irrelevancies in light of the fact that various of your presuppositions had already been shown to be in error. But saying that a point raised is irrelevant is not the same as saying a *person* is irrelevant.

<Joseph> shown to be in error in your opinion

<Ortho> Of course, Joseph.

<Joseph> ORTHO and as I added later you can hardly say this time that "Rome" can only attack a straw man image of "sola scriptura" as you have before, since it was your own definition I used this time

<cunninham> ortho-simple thing really to add your site to their's...simple e-mail the ministry that offers the banner-links, and you will be added to their selections of on-line Xian radio

<Ortho> Well, in your opinion, Joseph. :)

<Ortho> But, as I said, since you seem to base all your objections upon the idea that ss must result in the banishment of all disagreements, how is that relevant to my position, wherein I specifically state that it would not have that result?

<Joseph> and apparently in your opinion as well since I was quoting your book

<Ortho> I truly doubt my book says, "Joseph has accurately represented my position since he quoted something from my book." :)

<Ortho> Cunninham: Joseph came in earlier. He said he had some questions about sola scriptura, based upon my book, The Roman Catholic Controversy.

<Joseph> ORTHO did not say at all it should banish all disagreements Just said that it seems sola scriptura is based on opinion since there is no one authoritative human voice to tell us what is true teaching but instead a number of competing voices all claiming to have authority of truth

<Ortho> It turned out, in reality, it wasn't a matter of questions. It was a matter of disagreement. I had to leave to go get my kids, and it seems we are now picking back up.

<Joseph> ORTHO you did use the words "necessarily implied" in your book

<Ortho> That is, of course, Joseoph, untrue.

<Ortho> Tell me, do you have infallible knowledge of the teachings of Rome?

<Ortho> Because, Joseph, the words came directly from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

<Appollos> Well Joseph, objectively speaking there is no one authoritative human voice to tell us what is true teaching, period

<Joseph> So "sola scriptura" does NOT take into account what scripture "necessarily implies" Then why does your book say it does?

* Ortho confesses he can't figure out where Joseph gets these conclusions.

<Ortho> Sorry, Joseph, but I have no idea where you are getting these things. Care to be a little more clear in your objections?

<Joseph> ORTHO DOES sola scriptura take into account as biblical truth what is necessarily implied by bible or does it go ONLY by what the bible literally and explicitly says?

<Ortho> Sola scriptura, Joseph, says that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. Secondly, the phrase "necessarily implies" is found in reference to a confession of faith. That confession is explaining something. Shall I point out what it is explaining?

<Joseph> ORTHO does sola scriptura take into account as biblical truth what is necessarily implied by bible or does it go ONLY by what the bible literally and explicitly says?

<Ortho> Here is a modern-language rendering of the same passage: "The sum total of God's revelation concerning all things essential to His own glory, and to the salvation and faith and life of men, is either explicitly set down or implicitly contained in the Holy Scripture. Nothing, whether a supposed revelation of the Spirit or man's traditions, is ever to be added to Scripture."

<Ortho> That means, of course, that one cannot say, "Well, unless I find the exact formulation or words in the Bible, I won't believe it." The Bible teaches some things by constant reference and implication. That is no less a biblical teaching than one that is directly stated in clear words.

<Joseph> ORTHO so that's exactly what I've been asking. Is what the bible "necessarily implies" - as your book says - to be considered as adding to scripture? Is bible truth ONLY shown by what the bible literally and explicitly says?

<Ortho> For example, the Scriptures over and over again use Trinitarian language, without using the single word "Trinity."

<Ortho> I have never (and the specific citation above denies) used the phrase "adding to Scripture." Necessary implication is not an addition, it is mere acceptance of what is already there.

<Joseph> ORTHO so then back to the original question. Who decides what is taught in the bible by constant reference and implication? How among the many churches claiming authority to speak bible truth do we know for sure which one is right?

<Ortho> Please note the huge leap of subject that just took place: from what the Scripture reveals, to the implicit demand for an infallible authority to interpret Scripture.

<cunninham> ortho-amen------>the Scriptures over and over again use Trinitarian language, without using the single word "Trinity."

<Ortho> Who decides? That depends upon the scope of the question. For example, as far as what is preached in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, I, and my fellow elders, decide. That is the task assigned to us by the Word.

<cunninham> yes indeed, hence the example of the Trinity : )

<Ortho> But, on a completely personal level, every single person must decide and take responsibility for what he or she believes.

<Ortho> As to competing voices, again, that's nothing new. God has not chosen to shut the mouths of false teachers. Instead, we are to grow through our struggling with such things.

<Joseph> ORTHO never claimed you said necessary implication was adding to scripture - just saying if one's opinion is wrong on what is necessarily implied it COULD end up be adding to scripture

<cunninham> amen, hence Acts 17:11

<Joseph> ORTHO so then are you and the fellow elders of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church the pillar of truth the bible speaks of? Whatever you uphold as truth cannot be a lie or falsehood?

<Ortho> Yes, Joseph----just as the Roman Catholic is deeply in error for adding to the Gospel the concept of the Bodily Assumption of Mary. Most definitely. And, since I do not claim infallibility, I'm not sure why pointing out the fact that I could be wrong is relevant to me.

<Ortho> The Church, Joseph, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It does not follow that the the church is infallible, unless you would like to explain, logically, how that is.

<Ortho> I asked you a question a while back: do you have infallible knowledge of the teachings of Roman Catholicism?

<Joseph> Simple - because a pillar that upholds TRUTH cannot uphold a lie! Lies have no mixture with truth, and so if what the church upholds is part of a lie it is no longer a pillar of truth But the bible says the church is the pillar of truth and so what it upholds must be infallibly true

<Ortho> Please answer my question, first.

<Ortho> Secondly, this is a common epistemological error.

<Joseph> ORTHO I DID answer your question first and am now moving on to NEXT question

<Joseph> ORTHO do you really have to - while I am answering your FIRST question - try to make it appear as if I am avoiding your second question while I am still answering your first?

<Ortho> OK, let me ask it again: are you infallible in your knowledge of Roman Catholic teaching? Yes or no?

<Joseph> ORTH first are you satisfied that I answered your first question regarding the pillar of truth?

<Ortho> Please just answer the question.

<Ortho> I will address the epistemological error inherent in your response in a moment.

<Joseph> Just so you can't claim I'm avoiding your questions as you do so many while you interrupt them

<Joseph> Not about infallible knowledge of Catholic teaching

<Joseph> Now about I meant

<Ortho> What?

<Ortho> Joseph, are you infallible in your knowledge of Roman Catholic dogma? Yes or no?

<Joseph> no I don't have infallible knowledge of Catholic teaching but I do have SURE knowledge which is more than what you have regarding biblical teaching Those who disagree with CAtholic teaching at least KNOW what it is (church is against contraception, women priests, etc) while those following sola scriptura are NOT SURE what the bible teaches (does baptism save or not, etc.)

* cunninham is a quiet observer, as he watches (reads rather) the exchanges within channel

<Joseph> You see I knew you couldn't let me write out my response without interrupting

<Ortho> OK, so, you admit the relevance of seeing the difference between having infallible knowledge and having "sure" or "sufficient" knowledge.

<Nina^`^> how can one interrupt typing?

<Ortho> I'm thankful for that recognition.

* Ortho ignores the irrelevant jabs and complaints about typing "interruptions."

<Ortho> Now, since you recognize this, why don't you allow the same for me?

<Ortho> In other words, when I point out my own fallibility, you then say that all I can offer is my "opinion" of what the Bible says.

<Ortho> If that's true, then it must follow that all you can give me is your "opinion" of what Rome teaches, correct?

<Joseph> I do not need infallibility only certainty but I have certainty and you do not When you are wrong on bible you have only your fallible opinion to go back to (which failed you before) while if I am wrong on church teaching an outside human audible voice can correct me again and again if needed

<Ortho> Of course, the Word corrects me all the time, Joseph. But, back to the point. You say you have "certainty." I have certainty, too. Why can you have it, and I cannot?

<Ortho> Now, that outside human voice----how do you know it is correct?

<Ortho> I mean, that outside human voice has changed its message over the years. What it taught in 1300 is not what it teaches in 1998.

<Joseph> No that does not follow since I can lead you right to the source of what Rome teaches - the pope - and you can listen and be corrected by a living voice, not solely by your understanding of a book that cannot come up with new writings to address issues you might be in error on

<Ortho> So, when is it "infallible"?

<Joseph> ORTHO do you hear a living audible outside voice correcting you on The Word? If not it all too well could be a subjective interior voice telling you what you want to hear

* cunninham recoginzes the point of the "fallible" voice of the one outside

<Ortho> Yes, you have a single leader. Quite useful (and, I note, it makes the Bible irrelevant). However, I've tested your leader.

<Ortho> No, I don't hear such a voice. The Bible provides it by its consistency, and by my desire to conform perfectly to its teachings.

<Ortho> The Bible does not change over time, unlike the teachings of the Pope.

* captwade wonders whether the Pope hears an audible outside voice.

<Joseph> Not in the way you mean change What it teaches in 1998 does not contradict what it taught in 1300 (of course now comes the "what about meat on Fridays, etc. arguments)

<Ortho> Well, I think otherwise, Joseph. I think that what "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" meant in 1300 is not what John Paul meant 9/9/98 when he said that all people who honestly follow the dictates of their religion will end up with eternal life.

<Joseph> ORTHO but no chain is stronger than its weakest link And the weak link in personal interpretation 9 which is what you do when you say the bible personally corrects you) is the human subjective person whose fallible understanding cannot fully grasp the infallible word

*cunninham* why cant I (others of the reformed disposition) have you and the other pastors as that living audible outside voice correcting me (us) in the Word, as what the Pope is to the RCC, as in regards to the point that Jospeh is trying to make

<Ortho> And I don't think that what the 4th Lateran Council meant when it spoke of giving indulgences to anyone who took up the sword to "exterminate" the heretics in 1215 is the same as what Lumen Gentium meant in 1965.

<Joseph> ORTHO yet what people say the bible teaches DOES change over time

*cunninham* in other-words...what separates the RCC authority than that of the "Reformers" if the point that Jospeh is making is to a "visible" voice so called

<Ortho> Of course, Joseph---but I don't follow people, I follow the Word. I'm corrected by it. Try reading through the 119th Psalm sometime and asking yourself the question, "Do I have the same high view of Scripture that the Psalmist did?"

<Ortho> And as to that weak link, Joseph, you have the same one I do.

*cunninham* understand

<Joseph> ORTHO so you are actually claiming those are instances of when the church intended to teach infallible doctrine? You are as guilty of misrepresenting Catholic teaching as those you constantly claim misrepresent sola scriptura

<Ortho> See, you have made that fallible choice to follow that infallible authority you call Rome. That choice is your weak link. You can't be certain of it, hence, any and all other "certainties" are no more certain than that first choice.

<Joseph> ORTHO no since I have an outside objective voice of the church that you do NOT have

<Ortho> The 4th Lateran Council was fallible in its teaching on indulgences, Joseph?

<Ortho> Or is Lumen Gentium fallible?

<Ortho> And if the Roman Church has held up both as truth, doesn't that make the Church fallible, according to your own assertions made before?

<Ortho> I have an objective voice of the church, btw. Just not an *infallible* voice. Big difference.

<Ortho> You tell me, Joseph: does the Church exercise the power of the keys fallibly? Yes or no?

<Joseph> ORTHO I don't exactly recall the doctrine of indulgences necessarily stating one was always infallibly given for those "taking up the sword" as you imply Their is an infallible doctrine of indulgences but WHAT they are given for can change You seem to want to get away from that truth

<Ortho> Are indulgences given only through the exercise of the power of the keys?

<Joseph> ORTHO so then WHICH voice of the church do you listen to? Which one is the pillar of truth which cannot uphold a lie?

<Ortho> And if so, does it not follow, then, that giving plenary indulgences to those who exterminate heretics involves the authority, and teaching, of the church, and hence touches upon infallibility? And what is more, Lumen Gentium decries the use of force in religion. Which "truth" is "true"?

<Joseph> ORTHO yes it does But what you seek to define as an exercise of the power of those keys does not mean it actually was Just because you define something as such does not mean it IS as such

<Ortho> Now, let's address this "cannot uphold a lie" fallacy. You seem to think that if you hold up the truth, you must be infallible. Do you hold up truth? Are you infallible? If you are wrong about point X in doctrine Y, does that mean that ALL you uphold is a lie? If you say "No," you defeat your entire argument.

<Ortho> I have no idea what your last response means. I'm sorry.

<Joseph> ORTHO to your above post on plenary indulgences, no it does NOT follow

<Ortho> Joseph: Are you giving me an infallible definition in saying it does not follow, or a fallible opinion? If a fallible opinion, what if it DOES follow?

<Joseph> ORTHO I certainly do NOT uphold truth What I uphold can be mixed with error and so I do NOT uphold truth But the church the pillar of truth DOES uphold truth

<Ortho> An amazing statement, Joseph! You do not uphold truth! *I* sure do!

<Joseph> ORTHO really? In the sense that what you uphold is necessarily true?

<Ortho> All Christians are called to be truthful people, and to uphold the truth! It does not follow that each of us individually is infallible. Hence the error of your argument.

<Ortho> This is the error made by a fellow named Vinney Lewis. He claims to be infallible. He claims that unless you are infallible, nothing you say is "true."

<Ortho> He seems to think that if you admit there might be any level of error in what you are saying, then you can't claim anything you say is "true."

<Ortho> If I say "the sky is blue," someone might point out that there is a plane in the sky, and it is grey. Or a cloud, and it is white.

<Ortho> Obviously, then, one is playing upon words to say that unless what you say is infallibly true, it is not *sufficiently* true.

<Joseph> ORTHO what you give as a necessary definition is NOT necessarily the necessary definition Now I can uphold "truth" in one sense without calling myself a pillar of truth There are two different ways in which it can be said I uphold truth and the way the church upholds truth

<Ortho> Yet, Joseph, you have already admitted that you do not hold yourself to the same standard. You admit you have only "sufficient" knowledge of what Rome teaches, not infallible knowledge. Yet, when I say I have sufficient, not infallible, knowledge of what the Bible teaches, you say that is not enough. Why the double standard?

<Ortho> Of course, Joseph (in regards to being a pillar of truth). And I'm simply pointing out that you say that the ONLY way to understand 1 Timothy 3:15 is to understand it to make the church infallible. I point out it doesn't have to do that. So, can you give me an INFALLIBLE definition by the Pope saying that YOUR understanding of that passage is the correct one?

<Joseph> ORTHO no double standard because I have what you do NOT have - and thus there is no double standard because our situations are NOT the same. I can listen to ONE authoritative audible voice which can correct me when I am in error while when you are wrong on bible the only "authority" you have to correct you is conflicting voices each claiming to have authority and truth

<Ortho> Quite true, duck. There would be no reason for such exhortations if in fact there was an infallible authority to tell us what to believe outside of Scripture.

<Ortho> No, Joseph, you CLAIM to have something I do not. I have not for a second admitted you do. You *believe* you do, but I believe there is plenty of evidence against the Papacy and an "infallible magisterium." So, it seems your last statement is basically, "Hey, I can use a double standard, because I believe my system and reject yours." That's terribly inconsistent.

<Ortho> Secondly, I do not have "conflicting voices." The Word is one. The Word is unchanging.

<Ortho> The Word speaks the same thing today it spoke when it was written.

<Ortho> It constantly brings to me conviction, and correction.

<Ortho> It is the *non-application* of sola scriptura that gets me into trouble---when I allow traditions, human desires, etc., to get in the way of the Word's conforming me to the image of Christ.

<Joseph> OK then so WHICH authoritative voice claiming to teach the truth of the bible do you listen to? The one that claims baptismal regeneration or the one that claims water baptism is unnecessary?

<Ortho> Again, Joseph, I listen to the WORD, not a set of conflicting voices.

<Ortho> I take the assertion to the Scriptures.

* Ortho says his fingers are smoking. :)

<Joseph> There are many outside authoritative voices you could claim as the pillar of truth while for me there is only one

<cunninham> joseph-james said that he is amoung others apart of the reformed church in Phonix...say that for the sake of the arguement that I looked to james as the ONE authoritative audible voice which can correct me when I am in error, while on the same hand say to you, when you are wrong on bible the only "authority" you have to correct you is conflicting voices (case in point the degress of RCC on the matter of Indulgences) each claiming to have aut

<cunninham> (case in point the degress of RCC on the matter of Indulgences) each claiming to have authority and truth..do you see the point of the arguement that I am making? setting up a man as an infallible guide?

<Ortho> No, untrue, Joseph. I have denied that there are many. I have said the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the Scriptures define for me, and for the Church, what the truth is.

* captwade is always amused when people employ words to argue that words are inadequate to convey intended meaning. :-)

<Joseph> And I have asked WHICH church is that pillar and foundation of truth?

<Ortho> capt: <g>

<Ortho> And I have replied: the Church marked by adherence to His Word.

<cunninham> capt lol : )

<Joseph> ORTHO so that leaves us with our opinion as to which church that is. And so following sola scriptura many follow this pillar of truth and others a completely different one based on their opinion

<captwade> Joseph obviously believes that his intended meaning is capable of being communicated by means of words; a feat that apparently no other author is capable of.

<Ortho> Based upon their *responsibility* before God to follow His Word, Joseph. It's not a mere "opinion," it is a conclusion, based upon the firm foundation of the Scriptures.

<Joseph> CAPT the bible itself says there are many things written in Paul difficult to understand

<Ortho> Including, captwade, God Himself in His word.

<Ortho> Yes, Joseph, it does. But what does it say in the same sentence?

<captwade> Joseph: Difficult and impossible are two different things.

<Ortho> "Which the untaught and the unstable distort to their own destruction."

<Ortho> What does that mean?

<Ortho> If there are untaught, that means there are.....taught.

<Joseph> ORTHO a firm foundation which since it is based on our opinion of what the bible necessarily implies becomes shifting sand

<cunninham> has RCC ever taught mistruths, or rather, has RCC been fallible in their interpretation of Scripture

<^duck^`> Joseph: difficult to understand not "impossible"

<Ortho> And if there are unstable, that means there are......stable.

<captwade> Joseph: Peter wasn't denying the ability of readers to arrive at what Paul intended, was he?

<^duck^`> difficult to one, but may not be to another

<Ortho> Hence, in this very passage, we are told that God has determined to allow untaught and unstable people to exist, and in fact, to destroy themselves in false teaching!

<Joseph> ORTHO and which authoritative voice tells us who are the taught and who are the untaught? For example to all in this room you are the taught and I am the untaught

<Ortho> Again, Joseph, take that last line you just wrote, and please, go read Psalm 119. Slowly. Meditatively. And ask yourself a question: do you believe what the Psalmist believed?

<Ortho> If not, why not?

<Joseph> The untaught could be teaching as part of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist church pillar of truth

<Ortho> Well, Joseph, I really think you are starting to ask the same questions we answered a long time ago.

<Joseph> I doubt we'd agree if they were "answered"

<Ortho> Personally, I need to go spend some time with the munchkins, and I may even splurge and take the whole family out to dinner tonight. I think if you will read the log of this conversation, you'll see you've come back to square one all over again, and your questions *have* been answered.

<Joseph> Anyway I've wasted too much time with this and really must get to my next M.A. paper

<captwade> Joseph: Why do you believe that we are capable of interpreting your words in such a way as to know what you're saying?

<Ortho> Your next paper, Joseph?

<captwade> Or at least what you mean to say.

<Joseph> IF you want to discuss it further you can email me at JIMMYJOEJ@aol.com

<Ortho> Oh my.

<Ortho> I should have figured it out.

* captwade sulks since his question will go unanswered.

<Ortho> Nina, you were right all along!

<Nina^`^> lol

<cunninham> joseph-being a layman myself, might i ask you why it is that you see the RCC as the infallible voice on Holy Writ?

<Ortho> Jimmy, just a note for you: changing hostmasks to sneak under a ban is considered bad form. :)

<Nina^`^> ALWAYS listen to me James

<Joseph> CAPT here's the answer to your question

<Nina^`^> Same MO

<Ortho> I should, Nina. You know all things.

<Ortho> :)

<Joseph> CAPT because if you are wrong on what I say to you I can hear and correct you while the bible cannot hear with its ears and speak with an objective audible voice but only a subjective interior voice easily mistaken

<captwade> Joseph: But I don't have to still interpret the words of your correction?

<Nina^`^> Joseph when u are banned u see no reason not to return right?

<captwade> Oops...let me try again...

<Joseph> CAPT yes and I can correct again and again if necessary while the bible cannot

<captwade> Don't I still have to interpret your spoken or written words intended to correct my misinterpretation?

<Joseph> CAPT it shows in the way people disagree on bible and the way they disagree on church teaching

<captwade> Joseph: What's the difference between my interpreting spoken or written words?

<Joseph> When people disagree on the bible they all think THEIR understanding is true one while those who disagree with church teaching don't think the church should teach what it does For example many think women should be priests but KNOW church teaches against it while those who disagree on what bible says on baptism each thinks their opinion is what bible teaches

<captwade> In either case words requiring my interpretation are used. You can try to correct me verbally all you want but you must do so through the the medium of words.

<Joseph> OF course but I can improve and add new words to my interpretation/explanation which the bible cannot do

<captwade> Joseph: YOu don't mean to suggest that because there are differing interpretation of something that no one can know which if any are correct or superior, do you?

<Joseph> IT is the WAY in which there are differing interpretations: there is confusion over what bible teaches while there is disagreement with what church teaches

<captwade> Take the Holocaust for example. There are some who look at the same "evidence" that you and I do and conclude that it never happened. Since there is a difference of opinion, are you saying that we should conclude that no one can know whose interpretation of the data is correct?

<Joseph> As I said to ORTH gotta go and get back to MA paper

<Joseph> And as I also said to ORTH you can always email JIMMYJOEJ@aol.com

<^duck^`> I love the scriptures and apply them to my life

<Joseph> Might not get back to you right away with MA studies but eventually would

<Joseph> Goodbye

<captwade> When God spoke from the clouds "This is my beloved Son..." there were some who said it thundered, weren't there?

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-223-206.ipt.aol.com) has left #prosapologian

Then, a number of months later, Mr. C. again came into the channel.  This time, he was blatantly dishonest about who he was:

*** Deck (MDecker@1Cust237.tnt2.albany.ny.da.uu.net) has joined #prosapologian

<Deck> Sky may I ask a question on sola scriptura?

<skyman`> Deck, if I can ask you one first.

<Deck> Sky sure

<skyman`> k, are you RC?

<Deck> Sky yes I am Does that matter?

<skyman`> no, thx for the straight answer.

<skyman`> Your first time here?

<Deck> Sky sola scriptura teaches that no doctrine NOT taught in the bible is binding on Christians

<Deck> Sky yes

<Deck> Sky but since WHAT is to be considered canon or to be considered as NOT part of the canon is NOT taught in the bible, how then can a belief that the books of the bible ARE part of canon be considered as binding on Christians?

However, after a LONG discussion of the SAME issues yet again, Mr. C. reveals himself.  He had lost his connection, and came back in using the nick "Matt":

<Matt> When James White stops in tell him JIMMYJOEJ says hello He's already banned me numerous times including last night when LAZY wanted to ban me merely for the crime of being Catholic as you banned me over the weekend I've been banned so often for daring to ask questions that challenge assumptions that I've gone through quite a few names now so just tell ORTHO I said hi

<skyman`> you lied Jimmy

<skyman`> You told a baldfaced lie tonight

On June 1, 1999, Mr. C. came in under the nick "Philios."  James White was posting via a bot called Logos, which is why you will see Philios referring to "Logos" once in a while.

[20:48] Philios (Mark@ABD1137F.ipt.aol.com) joined #prosapologian.

<Ortho> Hello, Philios.

[20:53] <Philios> Hello Logos

<Ortho> Tell me, do you ever speak of anything other than your single objection to sola scriptura? Like, maybe, sola fide, or the atonement, or anything like that?

Said to #ProsApologian: Tell me, do you ever speak of anything other than your single objection to sola scriptura? Like, maybe, sola fide, or the atonement, or anything like that?

<Ortho> Hello?

[20:54] <Philios> Yes I do, but sola scriptura seems such a foundational issue, and so obviously self contradictory that it is an excellent example to use.

<Ortho> I see.

<Ortho> I wonder: have you ever answered the question of how you, personally, James C*****, have infallible knowledge of all the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

[20:55] <Philios> Beside, no one seems to be able to directly or logically answer the question, and so until they do it seems it is best to stay on that issue until I get a real answer

<Ortho> Of course, that assumes you'd accept a "real answer," which is highly questionable. :-)

[20:57] <Philios> LOGOS yes I have, since I do not need such knowledge, but only need sufficient knowledge, since MY recognition of the infallible church does not CREATE the church's infallibility, while it is recognition of WHAT is to be considered as scripture that CREATES THE BIBLE!

<Ortho> I see. So, the Bible is created by human perceptions?

[20:58] <Philios> LOGOS as historically demonstrated, yes. The bible did NOT drop from heaven as it is today, but was argued over as to WHAT actually belonged to the category of inspired scripture. It was THAT recognition that created the leather bound book so many have in their homes today that we know as the bible

[20:59] <Philios> Those human perceptions were of course infallibly guided by God

<Ortho> So, it is actually your assertion that the Scriptures are created by human perception? You don't believe God is the author, and creator, of Scripture?

<Ortho> Infallibly guided by God? I see. So, why aren't your perceptions of Rome's infallible teachings likewise infallibly guided by God?

[21:00] <Philios> Believing that human recognition creates the book we know as the bible does NOT contradict the inspiration of that recognition by God

<Ortho> I see. So, when it comes to Scripture, it's very nature is determined by divinely guided human perceptions, but this is not the case with the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

[21:01] <Philios> Because I am not infallibly guided; however, the church is, the same church that chose what should be considered part of the INFALLIBLE bible!

<Ortho> And when did this Church make this infallible decision, exactly, as you fallibly understand it?

[21:02] <Philios> LOGOS the church was created directly by God, unlike the bible which was created through the instrument of human recognition guided by God

[21:02] <Philios> LOGOS what infallible decision are you talking about?

<Ortho> And when did this Church, which you say is directly created by God (while Scripture is not) make this infallible decision, which you can only fallibly know?

<Ortho> Well, you say the Church has infallibly decided on the canon of Scripture. Can you tell us when this decision was rendered so that all everywhere could, finally, have the Scriptures?

[21:03] <Philios> Again, WHAT infallible decision are you talking about? The decision of what is to be considered part of the bible?

<Ortho> Do you understand the question I asked, Philios?

[21:05] <Philios> <Philios> I would say it occurred in the late 300s, when the councils of Hippo, Carthage and the canonical list of Pope Damsus decided what was to be recognized as scripture. However, if I am wrong, I have the living voice of the church to correct me audibly

<Ortho> I see. So, Hippo, Carthage, etc., were infallible sources of revelation?

[21:06] <Philios> LOGOS if they spoke with the authority and voice of the magisterial church in confirming what was to be believed by all the faithful, yes

<Ortho> But you could be wrong about this, correct?

<Ortho> I mean, most Roman Catholic theologians recognize that the first *dogmatic* definition of the complete canon was at the Council of Trent in 1546. Should I accept your opinion on that, or theirs?

[21:08] <Philios> LOGOS yes I could be wrong. Fortunately, it is NOT my knowledge that creates the infallibility of the church. What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> So, how could I determine who is right (i.e., you or others with whom I have spoken)? Do I have to appeal directly to the Pope himself?

[21:10] <Philios> LOGOS that would depend on what you would call "dogmatic" It is something like the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress, that mandated marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman, banning recognition of homosexual marriage. Now, before this act was passed, was homosexual marriage allowed? No, it was not! However, since no one before had thought to question this, the law did not have to be passed. It is often only when something is QUESTIONED

[21:10] <Philios> been considered as affirmed before

<Ortho> I'm sorry, I don't understand the connection you just drew. Are you saying there were no canonical questions from Hippo to Trent?

<Ortho> If that is the case, could you please comment on the fact that there are *many* such questions, including Gregory the Great's rejection of the deuterocanonicals, all the way up to Cardinal Cajetan's rejection of the same at the time of the Reformation?

[21:12] <Philios> Around the time of the Council of Trent, WHAT was canonical was called into question by Protestants. So at that time it became necessary to make a definitive declaration of WHAT was canonical. NO, as you well know, if you can respond without twisting my words (which I doubt you can), it was the first truly serious objection to what the church accepted as scripture. How do YOU know what is infallibly part of the infallible bible?

[21:13] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> Well, you seem to be assuming facts that are not in evidence. Do you reject the testimony of historians that from the very beginning a long line of churchmen have rejected the OT Apocrypha?

[21:14] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> Are you unwilling to answer questions about your own assertions, sir?

[21:15] <Philios> I have asked this question repeatedly, and just as repeatedly you avoid it! I HAVE been answering your questions, but you seem unable or unwilling to extend the same courtesy

<Ortho> For example, Athanasius, Melito of Sardis, Jerome, Gregory the Great, etc.?

<Ortho> You seem to be getting agitated. I'm sorry that pointing out inconsistencies in your position upsets you.

[21:15] <Philios> So did they make an infallible declaration of the church that the apocrypha was NOT part of the bible?

<Ortho> No one claimed, back then, the prerogatives Rome claims today, sir. That is another example of modern Roman anachronism.

[21:16] <Philios> It would be nice to actually get a response to one of MY questions, since you seem insistent on MY answering, but remarkable diffident about answering mine!

[21:16] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> The fact remains that you do not have a uniform belief, which is necessary for the answer you gave as to why it was not until Trent that we have an infallible, dogmatic definition of the canon given.

<Ortho> That much is now clearly in evidence.

[21:17] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> Now, to your point: I think I have an infallible Bible because it's author is perfect and cannot produce anything but what is infallible.

<Ortho> Is there a problem with that, in your opinion?

[21:18] <Philios> We have a uniform belief, because unlike the MANY divided voices of the protestant denominations, the church speaks officially with ONE voice

<Ortho> I see. So, does it not logically follow, given your premises, that until at least the end of the fourth century, no one had an infallible Bible?

[21:18] <Philios> And WHO was the author of the bible?

<Ortho> Jesus Christ taught that the author of the Scriptures is God Himself. I believe Him.

<Ortho> But, of course, you seem to be asking, "How can God prove He speaks as God," which is an obviously inappropriate question.

[21:19] <Philios> OK so WHAT scriptures were inspired by God?

[21:19] <Philios> Where does the infallible bible declare WHAT is to be considered part of it?

<Ortho> Please answer my question: did anyone prior to Hippo and Carthage have an infallible Bible? Yes or no?

[21:21] <Philios> Not an infallible recognition, no. Fortunately, they did NOT follow sola scriptura, but had an authoritative teaching church! Now, if they followed sola scriptura, there would be a problem with that. You put YOUR beliefs onto the early church as necessary, assuming since they did not have an infallibly recognized bible they were lost. However, they DID have an authoritative church

<Ortho> So, your answer is "no, they did not." Correct?

[21:21] <Philios> Jerome never rejected the deuterocanon out of hand. He did however posit that they may be set apart, in an "appendix" if you will. Nevertheless, he acquiesced to Pope Damasus to include them in the LXX order.

<Ortho> So, your answer is "no, they did not," correct?

<Ortho> So it is your position that the early Church had no infallible Scripture, but they had an infallible, authoritative Church instead, correct?

[21:23] <Philios> An infallible recognition, no - not until the church infallibly recognized WHAT was part of the bible. Do YOU have an infallible recognition of what belongs to the bible, or do you have a fallible bible?

<Ortho> Would it follow, then, that we find the early Fathers, prior to Hippo, explicitly teaching that they had no infallible Scriptures, but did have an infallible Church authority to follow, correct?

[21:24] <Philios> LOGOS no it would not necessarily follow at all

[21:24] <Philios> What is assumed is hardly necessary to be taught

<Ortho> Please explain why it does not follow.

[21:24] <Philios> What is assumed is hardly necessary to be taught

<Ortho> I see. So, it is your position that the early Church assumed the idea that she had no infallible Scriptures? Yes or no?

[21:25] <Philios> As I said before, it is only points that are argued over that need be taught

[21:25] <Philios> No that is NOT my position, as you well know

<Ortho> So, it is your point that no early Father ever taught that the Church had infallible Scriptures?

[21:25] <Philios> What the church DID assume was the teaching authority of the church

[21:25] <Philios> No that is not my point either

<Ortho> I see. So you assume this, and hence reject the call to be able to prove this from the patristic sources?

[21:26] <Philios> Prior to Hippo and Carthage, the "canon" was largely determined by individual church leadership and patriarchates, and could change on the whim of new leaders. Hence, you had such works as "The Shepherd" by Hermas and various gospels and epistles in a regional collection. Likewise, books like Jude and Philemon were often ignored as uninspired.

<Ortho> I'm sorry, your position seems rather difficult to follow. I believe you indicated that, until Hippo and Carthage, no one had an infallible Bible. Is this not what you said?

[21:26] <Philios> Prof. White, you seem to ask many questions, but unwilling to answer any yourself

[21:27] <Philios> The eccumencial councils that standarized a canon for all the Christian faithful was required because the allowance of non-inspired works was allowing a subtle form of gnosticism to prevail in certain areas.

<Ortho> The Socratic method is often useful, Mr. C***.

[21:27] <Philios> Yet you seem unable to stand up to that Socratic method as you demand others do! So how do you have an infallible bible WITHOUT an infallible recognition of WHAT that bible includes?

<Ortho> You are addressing lots of questions that I am not asking. Let's focus again, please. You insist that without an external, infallibly defined canon, that one cannot have an infallible Bible. It follows, of necessity, that no one had such an infallible Bible until 1546, actually. But, you go against the majority of Roman Catholics and say that the provincial council of Hippo is "good enough."

<Ortho> So, even taking your unusual (and highly fallible) view, it follows, inevitably, that until Hippo, the early Christians had no infallible Bible. Seemingly, then, the early Christians were in the same situation I am in, correct?

<Ortho> Obviously, therefore, your position is again proven self-refuting, since it is obvious, beyond controversy, that the early Church did indeed have the inspired and infallible Bible, claimed to have such, and taught on that basis. No one can seriously challenge that.

<Ortho> Now, as to your question, you well know that as a Protestant, I do not claim infallibility for myself. Hence, I do not claim infallible knowledge of any fact of revelation. I claim the Scriptures are sufficient to give me a knowledge that leads to eternal life.

[21:32] <Philios> So HOW do you have infallible scriptures if you do not have an infallible recognition of what they are?

[21:33] <Philios> So in short, NO, there wasn't "an inspired bible" at the time. It existed, in particulate form, until the church established was was to be binding upon the faithful.

[21:33] <Philios> And contrary to popular belief, Scofield wasn't there to straighten them all out. ;-)

<Ortho> Well, thank you for joining us tonight, Mr. C*****. This log will show that 1) your questions have been answered; 2) you have not answered the questions asked of you; 3) your position is untenable and self-contradictory, and 4) you ended your time here by becoming abusive and doing nothing but making wild claims. Thanks, but as you know, you have been banned from this channel at least 20 times, and will be again. :-) Good night.

[21:33] <Philios> So HOW do you have infallible scriptures if you do not have an infallible recognition of what they are?

[21:33] Philios!Mark@ABD1137F.ipt.aol.com kicked from #prosapologian by Logos!believer@mercury.wildstar.net: Good night.

UPDATED MATERIAL, September 7, 2001

The following speaks for itself.  We only note at the end "StevenD" reposts, from his own buffer, the same words that NA27 had posted.  

[19:17] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS you are begging the question, demanding I follow your view/give in to your argument by demanding I give scripture on that, why is a verse needed? You are demanding I follow YOUR view of the bible as the sole infallible rule of faith

[19:17] * NA27 notes JJJ seems stumped.

[19:17] <Charis> JJJ:  Offer anything you would like to answer the question.

[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> JJJ notes that NA27 can only make sarcastic comments but not engage in real one on one debate

[19:18] <NA27> JJJ:  Why would the NT require an infallible interpreter if the OT didn't require an infallible Israel?

[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS I already did: <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS false presumption, who said it didn't require one?

[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS and answering a question WITH a question is not a real answer, but the classic way of getting out of answering

[19:18] <Charis> JJJ:  That's not an answer.

[19:18] <NA27> That is not a false presumption....are you saying Israel was infallible?  Yes or no?

[19:18] <Charis> But isn't that exactly what you did?

[19:19] <Charis> JJJ:  I asked you a question and you answered it with a question.

[19:19] <Charis> JJJ:  Where is your proof that Israel was infallible?

[19:19] <NA27> JimmyJoeJ:  Was the leadership of Israel infallible?  Yes or No?

[19:20] <JimmyJoeJ> NA Israel was infallibly guided to choose what was scripture, yes. NOW you will come up with your usual response of "so when did Israel suddenly become fallible?" Answer: with the coming of Christ/the establishment of the Christian church

[19:20] <JimmyJoeJ> NA I am trying to type a response as you use the time I am typing to make it appear as if I am not answering

[19:20] <Charis> Talk about a presupposition.

[19:20] <NA27> AH, it was!  Well, please, sir, explain the consistency of your position in light of the fact, acknowledged by all, that the Jews did NOT accept as Scripture the Apocryphal books that the Council of Trent canonized in 1546?

[19:21] <NA27> I wasn't rushin' ya.  :-)

[19:21] <JimmyJoeJ> WONKY yes I do, and many who look at "Dr." White's website think the same thing, though he always says anyone who disagrees with him about it aren't honest

[19:21] <Charis> JJJ:  You first need to establish that Israel was in fact infallible.  Until you do that you are arguing from silence.

[19:22] <wonky73> SO JJJ You are saying that pages and pages and megabytes of bandwidth responses to you never occurred!!!???

[19:22] <Orr^^> Makes one wonder if there are infallible utterances from teh Pope, and there were only a handful ex-cathedra, does that mean that the rest of the dogma is fallible?

[19:23] <Charis> JJJ:  Where is your proof that Israel was infallible?

[19:23] <Charis> JJJ: Why would the NT require an infallible interpreter if the OT didn't require an infallible Israel?

[19:23] * NA27 hopes he is just waiting for a JJJ reply on the canon issue....

[19:23] <JimmyJoeJ> NA those books were rejected as scripture at the council of Jamniah, long after the death of Christ and the start of the church, so 1. they weren't rejected until later, and 2. if they had a council at which the question of their acceptance or rejection came up, it is pretty obvious they were at least partially accepted, otherwise why even deal with the question of whether the apocrypha was scripture or not?

[19:24] <wonky73> sigh looks like JJJ doesn't know his history accurately.

[19:24] <NA27> You are incorrect, JJJ.  The facts are very fully against you on this one.  If I may elaborate:

[19:24] <JimmyJoeJ> WONKY honest responses, no. They have completely avoided the question and the points I make

[19:24] * wonky73 notes he has been reading a good book called. "The Old Testament Cannon of the New Testament Church."

[19:24] <Charis> JJJ: Why would the NT require an infallible interpreter if the OT didn't require an infallible Israel?

[19:24] <NA27> 1)  There was no "Council of Jamnia."  You really need to get up to speed on that topic.  There were discussions concerning Esther in the second century, but not as you put it there.

[19:24] <wonky73> AH so you mean nobody as refuted you question. 

[19:24] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS the OT did require an infallibly guided Israel

[19:25] <Charis> JJJ:  Who guided them?

[19:25] <wonky73> AH so you mean nobody has refuted your question. <- that is what I meant 

[19:25] <NA27> 2)  the Apocryphal books were NEVER laid up in the Temple as ALL of the canonical books were at least a full CENTURY before the coming of Christ;

[19:25] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS God, through the teachers Jesus told Jews to follow, those who "sat in the seat of Moses"

[19:25] <NA27> 3)  The Apocryphal books recognize the existence of the three-fold canon of the OT, showing they are not a *part* of said canon;

[19:25] <Charis> JJJ:  And where does it tell us that they were infallibe?

[19:26] <JimmyJoeJ> NA how do you have an infallible bible if the canon that makes up the bible is not infallible?

[19:26] <wonky73> Ah sigh

[19:26] <JimmyJoeJ> NA how do you have an infallible bible if the canon that makes up the bible is not infallible?

[19:26] <wonky73> Been answered so many times.

[19:26] <Charis> JJJ:  I'm waiting..

[19:26] <NA27> 4)  The Apocryphal books were rejected by such leading Christian writers as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Jerome, and the one that should be most interesting to you, JJJ, Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome.

[19:27] <JimmyJoeJ> NA who had the authority to say the canon is closed?

[19:27] <Orr^^> how do you have an inffallible authority if there is no way to establish an "infallible" rule to demonstrate or test it?

[19:27] <NA27> These are just a FEW of the facts concerning the matter, JJJ.  So, I take you back, if you would be so kind, to the preceding issue:  you seemingly have claimed Israel was infallible when it chose the books of Scripture, and, if I'm interpreting you correctly, you are saying they chose the Apocryphal books as well.  Correct?

[19:28] <Orr^^> SEeing that no one else is infallible except that authority?

[19:28] <Charis> JJJ:  For that matter, who did the Bereans rely on for their infallibe interpretation of Pauls words when Pauls clearly commends them "for searching the Scriptures?" 

[19:28] <NA27> Can you give me a SINGLE shred of historical evidence to back up the claim that Israel infallibly defined the Apocryphal books as Scripture?

[19:29] <JimmyJoeJ> NA even if we accept the canon as being created by God's act of inspiring writing, how do we KNOW what is inspired? If we are to be guided by God's Word, and the canon is the full list of what that writing is, isn't it important to know WHAT is God's writing and what isn't????

[19:30] <NA27> Do I take it by your going back to your "old" question that you will not respond to the refutation of your "Israel was infallible" and "Israel chose the Scriptures" comments?

[19:30] * Mfibo^ notices that JJJ taps past the direct inquisition yet again

[19:30] <JimmyJoeJ> NA just the kind of debate you like, where you control what are to be considered as issues of importance, where you get to ask all the questions and avoid having to give any answers

[19:30] <StevenD> heh

[19:30] <Rice> JJJ, he just responded to your points....

[19:30] <NA27> You made statements, JJJ.  I've refuted them.  Do you wish to acknowledge your error and try again?

[19:30] <Rice> JJJ, and now he is waiting for you to respond to his refutation;

[19:31] <Charis> JJJ:  Answer the question.  You are not in charge here.  We are testing your theology in light of God's words.  If you don't like it, take your leave.

[19:31] <NA27> I think I've been quite fair to you, JJJ.

[19:31] <Charis> JJJ:  For that matter, who did the Bereans rely on for their infallibe interpretation of Pauls words when Pauls clearly commends them "for searching the Scriptures?" 

[19:31] <JimmyJoeJ> NA these are the questions I have asked you time and again, and yet you ignore the point: WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT GOD'S CANON IS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BIBLE, AND WITHOUT AN INFALLIBLE RECOGNITION OF GOD'S CANON WE CAN'T HAVE AN INFALLIBLE BIBLE, ONLY A REASONABLY SURE ONE AT BEST.

[19:31] <NA27> I've not used any ad hominem, and I've replied fully to your assertions. 

[19:31] <NA27> Isn't that fair of me?

[19:31] <Charis> JJJ:  That song is very old.

[19:32] <NA27> JJJ, as you know, I've replied to you on that issue as well.  I've pointed out the inconsistency of your assertion, for, given your principles, that means no one prior to April of 1546 HAD a Bible....

[19:32] * Mfibo^ hands JJJ his one string banjo tuned the key of blah

[19:32] <NA27> But don't you think it is only fair to everyone else watching that you attempt to answer what I have said?

[19:32] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS and who said that the Bereans infallibly interpreted Paul's words? I never have, unless you feel your argument is so weak you need to create a straw man and put lies in my mouth

[19:33] <Charis> JJJ:  Why in Heavens name would Paul have commended then for searvching the Scriptures if he didn't believe that they were doing right by searching them?

[19:33] <Charis> JJJ:  You are illogical.

[19:34] <JimmyJoeJ> NA, no because the bible was formed in the late 300s, the council of Trent only reaffirmed what had been decided centuries earlier. Why reaffirm it only then in the 1500s? Because up till then with Martin Luther hardly anyone had been so stupid as to question the canon recognized by the church, it is often only when issues come up that they are addressed

[19:34] <Charis> The ultimate martyr.

[19:34] <NA27> Jimmy, that is simply untrue.

[19:34] <NA27> Not even your own historians say what you just said.

[19:34] <NA27> Let me again provide a point-by-point rebuttal.

[19:35] <NA27> 1)  Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils.  They were not infallible.

[19:35] <NA27> 2)  Even Gregory the Great rejected those books.

[19:35] <NA27> 3)  Cossin lists 52 major ecclesiastical writers up to the time of the Reformation that rejected those books.  Even Cardinal Cajetan, writing just before the Reformation, rejected them.

[19:35] <Rice> Steven, I don't mind talking to "less" than the best :o)

[19:35] <NA27> Hence, your statement stands utterly refuted there.

[19:36] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS 1. Believing they were doing right is NOT the same as believing they were infallibly interpreting his words 2. Paul commended for their openness to listening to him, an openness that was not show by the Thessalonians

[19:36] <NA27> Now, you have said that without an INFALLIBLE canon you have no Bible.  However, the first INFALLIBLE canon you have provide is April 1546....so, my question stands.

[19:36] <JimmyJoeJ> NA you don't mention the council of Rome

[19:36] <NA27> Did no one have a Bible prior to 1546?  Yes or no?

[19:36] <Charis> JJ:  Can I conyinue to hope that you will answer the question that you have refused to answer up to this point?  here it is again: JJJ:  And where does the Bible tell us that Israel was infallibe?

[19:36] <C777> No one said the Bereans were infallible.  They just searched the Scriptures instead of listening to any old thing preached willy nilly to them.

[19:37] <NA27> There are many questions, JJJ, about whether there even WAS a Council of Rome, and secondly, even if you accept it happened, it too was provincial, and not ecumenical.

[19:37] <NA27> Your problem remains.

[19:38] <Charis> JJJ:  Don't you think Paul would have discouraged their searching the Scriptures if he felt it wasn't within then to understand the Scriptures without an infallible interpreter.  And since he didn't why does Rome?

[19:39] <AKAJerry> Paul was that infallible interpreter. :-)

[19:39] <JimmyJoeJ> NA no, I have not said without an infallible canon you have no bible. You are again showing how you feel the need to lie and put straw man arguments in my mouth. Why do you have to do that if you have the truth? Why the need to lie? What I HAVE said is that to have an INFALLIBLE bible you need an infallible canon, you like Luther before you like to change around one little word or two, as you do with O'Brien who did NOT say the bible was an untr

[19:39] <Charis> AKA:  But who told the Bereans this?

[19:39] <JimmyJoeJ> NA when councils disagree with you, you have a tendency to question whether they actually happened

[19:39] <AKAJerry> Who cares. :-)

[19:39] <NA27> First, JJJ says the following:  <JimmyJoeJ> NA these are the questions I have asked you time and again, and yet you ignore the point: WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT GOD'S CANON IS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BIBLE, AND WITHOUT AN INFALLIBLE RECOGNITION OF GOD'S CANON WE CAN'T HAVE AN INFALLIBLE BIBLE, ONLY A REASONABLY SURE ONE AT BEST.

[19:40] <Charis> AKA:  Who told the Bereans that Paul was correct?  They were testing Pauls words to them.

[19:40] <NA27> Then JJJ says this:  <JimmyJoeJ> NA no, I have not said without an infallible canon you have no bible. You are again showing how you feel the need to lie and put straw man arguments in my mouth.

[19:40] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS the bible doesn't say Israel was infallible, and it doesn't have to, you are demanding I go along with your argument of finding everything in the bible

[19:40] <NA27> JJJ #1 says, AND WITHOUT AN INFALLIBLE RECOGNITION OF GOD'S CANON WE CAN'T HAVE AN INFALLIBLE BIBLE, but JJJ #2 says, NA no, I have not said without an infallible canon you have no bible.

[19:41] <Charis> JimmyJoeJ:  No, I'm demanding that you support your assertions.

[19:41] <NA27> And then accuses me of lying!  Heh, wonderful....

[19:41] <JimmyJoeJ> NA yes, your posts prove my point. Note this: " WITHOUT AN INFALLIBLE RECOGNITION OF GOD'S CANON WE CAN'T HAVE AN INFALLIBLE BIBLE"

[19:42] <NA27> JJJ, I've been very fair to you this evening.  Everyone in this room, let alone the log of the convo, shows that.

[19:42] <JimmyJoeJ> NA you edited the word "infallible" out of what I said

[19:42] <NA27> I edited nothing.

[19:42] <NA27> Now you are really lying badly.

[19:42] <NA27> Good grief, everyone in this channel can scroll back and look for themselves!

[19:42] <NA27> Only a complete loon would accuse me of editing what is still in everyone's buffers!!!!!!!!

[19:43] <NA27> Good grief!  Try to talk to the man civilly and what do you get?

[19:43] * Mfibo^ hands JJJ the golden loon award, brought to you by Sara Lee ;)

[19:43] <JimmyJoeJ> NA I said without an INFALLIBLE canon you can't have an INFALLIBLE bible, and YOU claim I said without an INFALLIBLE canon we can't have a BIBLE at all! You are editing my statements to twist around what you can't refute

[19:43] *** CStar sets mode: +o NA27

[19:43] <NA27> Look, you utter moron....scroll back and read it for yourself.  I quoted YOU.

[19:43] <JimmyJoeJ> Anybody notice the sudden change in what NA typed?

[19:43] *** NA27 sets mode: +b *!*@AC929C5A.ipt.aol.com

[19:43] *** JimmyJoeJ was kicked by NA27 (Get a life you goon.)

[19:43] <Charis> lol

[19:44] <C777> sheesh

[19:44] <Charis> He does this all the time.

[19:44] <Charis> If he can't answer a question he blames it on the one asking.

[19:44] <NA27> Sorry, Charis, if I over stepped my bounds.  :-)

[19:44] <Mfibo^> ROFL

[19:44] <NA27> But accusing me of lying when I was cutting and pasting his OWN WORDS that are still available for ALL to see!

[19:44] <Charis> No not at all.  I have banned plenty of people in your channel. ;)

[19:46] <StevenD> <JimmyJoeJ> NA these are the questions I have asked you time and again, and yet you ignore the point: WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT GOD'S CANON IS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BIBLE, AND WITHOUT AN INFALLIBLE RECOGNITION OF GOD'S CANON WE CAN'T HAVE AN INFALLIBLE BIBLE, ONLY A REASONABLY SURE ONE AT BEST.

MORE?  Can't you just ignore this guy?  :-) 
In April of 2002 we began to manage the #apologetics channel in Starlink-irc.  We do not maintain an active ban list in the channel, for JimmyJoeJ is a regular visitor.  Despite all that came above, JJJ continues his campaign.  Finally, on April 9th, JimmyJoeJ made the assertion in channel that the Catholic Church "edited" the Bible.  Here are his words:

[17:59] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH essentially the church by the guidance of God edited the bible
[17:59] < NA27 > That is untrue, of course. You have been refuted dozens of times, your selective memory notwithstanding. Pray tell, please quote the council that claimed "we edited the Bible"?
[17:59] < NA27 > Quote the patristic testimony to the Fathers who said, "We chose the books of Scripture"?

It became painfully obvious quite quickly that JJJ had not done much reading in the early church fathers.  So, on the 11th of April, when he came into the channel, I asked him again.  What resulted was amazing:

[21:20] < NAhome > BTW, though I rarely do so, I happened to scroll back a bit in channel earlier, and saw a comment you made....a laughable one regarding the article on our website. If you really want me to continue posting examples of your being refuted, I suppose I can make the effort, though I have much more important things to do as far as posting articles on the site.
[21:22] <JimmyJoeJ> NA the quotes you demanded, those you claimed unless they were explicitly stated just as YOU wanted them to be refuted my point? That is just the same as a JW saying unless the word "trinity" is spelled out in the bible, it disproves the doctrine.
[21:22] <JimmyJoeJ> How was the canon formed then, according to you? How did we get the bible as it is today, and when did it come about?
[21:22] < NAhome > No, that's an irrational response. If what you are saying is true, surely you can find loads of patristic citations and conciliar statements from the primitive church backing you up.
[21:22] < NAhome > It's really easy. Try it! :-)
[21:23] <JimmyJoeJ> NA I gave you the example of the papal lists of Pope
[21:23] <JimmyJoeJ> Damasus, around the 400s
[21:23] < NAhome > Well, you know, you made the claim that the church "edited" the Bible. I would really think you could back something like that up!
[21:23] <JimmyJoeJ> NA How was the canon formed then, according to you? How did we get the bible as it is today, and when did it come about?
[21:23] < NAhome > And where did Damasus claim to be creating the canon. Quotes, please?
[21:24] < NAhome > Been there, done that, JJJ. We've moved on. Remember that long article on the website? We answered that question then. You are now in need to backing up your claims. Come on, it must be easy to do so!
[21:24] <JimmyJoeJ> NA where he says that "these are the canonical books".
[21:24] <JimmyJoeJ> NA how was the bible formed? When was it formed as we have it today?
[21:24] < NAhome > That is all you have, JJJ? Your reading into that? When Athanasius gave his 39th Festal letter, why doesn't that do the same thing for you?
[21:25] < NAhome > You *have* read it, right, JJJ?
[21:25] <JimmyJoeJ> NA how was the bible formed? When was it formed as we have it today?
[21:25] < NAhome > You *have* read it, right, JJJ?
[21:26] <JimmyJoeJ> I don't expect to see that last conversation at your website, it exposes your position that the bible can change, that scriptures can be added or deleted as "our knowledge grows and matures"
[21:26] < NAhome > You *have* read it, right, JJJ?
[21:27] <JimmyJoeJ> NA Why is it you demand answers of others when you show you can't give any yourself? how was the bible formed? When was it formed as we have it today?
[21:27] < NAhome > You *have* read it, right, JJJ?
[21:28] < NAhome > Simple question. I can point you to a full URL and numerous written sources in answer to yours, which you have ignored: my question is simple: have you, or have you not, read Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter?
[21:28] < NAhome > I will take that as a "no."
[21:29] < NAhome > Hence, you make claims concerning the early church's actions, yet, when pressed, you not only cannot produce relevant citations outside of "well, a Pope said these were the canonical books," but you have not done the most basic primary reading on the topic. You are not promoting your position well, JJJ.
[21:31] < NAhome > Now, as to the formation of the canon, as has been explained to you, the canon is not an object of revelation, it is a byproduct thereof. Hence, the term "formation" can refer in one sense to the act of inspiration, and in another, to the historical process of the recognition of the finished act of God by the Christian community.
[21:31] <JimmyJoeJ> NA your position is that the bible can change, that was presented in our last conversation very clearly - that's why I don't expect to see it at your webpage on me
[21:31] < NAhome > If you refer to the first, the canon was "formed" contemporaneously with the act of inspiration.
[21:31] < NAhome > I see you have no meaningful response to the historical issue. Fully understood. Thanks.
[21:32] <JimmyJoeJ> NA is OUR canon as found in the bible the exact same as God's canon?
[21:32] < NAhome > If you refer to the second, the process followed very much the same process as with the OT canon.
[21:32] <JimmyJoeJ> NA is OUR canon as found in the bible the exact same as God's canon?
[21:32] < NAhome > In neither case did any of God's people see the need for an allegedly infallible source to define the canon for them.
[21:33] <JimmyJoeJ> NA no infallible canon, no infallible bible. is OUR canon as found in the bible the exact same as God's canon?
[21:33] < NAhome > Yes, the canon of God's people (I exclude Rome) is accurate and perfect: not because of those who recognized it passively, but because of the promise of God regarding His purpose for the giving of Scripture itself.
[21:34] < NAhome > That is, since God has a purpose for inspiring the Scriptures, and He is sovereign over all things, He has preserved that Word: both as to its text (transmission) and its content (canon).
[21:34] <JimmyJoeJ> NA yet you have said our knowledge of God's canon (which creates our bible) can change, so you have therefore said the bible can change
[21:35] < NAhome > Your error, JJJ, has always been to assume that refusing to call the church infallible limited God's ability to guide and give His Word: no matter how often it is explained to you, since is the very marrow of your thin apologetic, you have a vested interest in not *hearing* a rebuttal.
[21:35] < NAhome > I have said no such thing, for, as normal, you have misconstrued what you have read, given your unwillingness to listen to what is said to you.
[21:37] <JimmyJoeJ> NA it's right in your book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, which I directly quoted from in our last conversation. You say our knowledge of what God inspired as scripture can change. This means the bible can change
[21:37] < NAhome > The combination of your ignorance of the position you deny (something you cannot charge me with, at any rate), and your own lack of preparation and study, as seen in your lack of familiarity with something as vital and important in canon studies as Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter, leaves you in no position to even offer the beginning of an argument.
[21:38] < NAhome > I'm sure you are so deceived, JJJ, that you think you can tell me what I *mean* in my own writings, but that doesn't make you correct. :-)
[21:38] <JimmyJoeJ> NA I am quoting the words you wrote to show what the position YOU express leads to
[21:39] < NAhome > I have seen no quoting here, JJJ.
[21:39] <JimmyJoeJ> NA you want to see a quote? Let me get it for you
[21:40] < NAhome > And I am sorry....you are ignorant both of church history and especially Reformed theology, hence, I have no reason to trust your ability to determine what something "leads to."
[21:40] < NAhome > Feel free, if you wish to continue your act of self-destruction. :-)
[21:40] < NAhome > I can try to pull it up from my logs via the network, if you wish....
[21:42] <JimmyJoeJ> It's quite simple. 1. You say that God creates the canon by the act of inspiring scripture 2. You say our knowledge of what is God's canon can change. 3. This rather undeniably leads to the position that our bible can change, since the bible is formed by our recognition of God's canon of scripture
[21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> This is from the conversation of the other night...
[21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> <JimmyJoeJ> "The canon is one issue, and it comes from God's action of
[21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> inspiring the Scriptures. Our knowledge of canon is another. Our knowledge
[21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> can grow and mature, as it did in times in history. But the canon is not
[21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> defined by us nor is it affected by our knowledge or ignorance." NOTE those
[21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> important words! "Our knowledge of the canon is another. Our knowledge can
[21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> grow and mature, as it did in times of history.
[21:44] < NAhome > You really can't possibly read that poorly, can you, JJJ?
[21:44] < NAhome > I mean, there it is, right in front of you, and you can't read it?
[21:44] < NAhome > But the canon is not
[21:44] < NAhome > [21:43] <JimmyJoeJ> defined by us nor is it affected by our knowledge or ignorance.
[21:44] < NAhome > nor is it affected by our knowledge or ignorance. <----- can you read those words, JJJ?
[21:44] <JimmyJoeJ> Our knowledge can grow and mature, our knowledge can change. So you are ultimately saying (though you certainly don't wish to make it obvious) that our bible can change
[21:45] < NAhome > That is simply ridiculous.
[21:45] < NAhome > It is very hard to know how to respond to such silliness.
[21:45] < NAhome > Tell me, what is the date on the Muratorian fragment?
[21:45] <JimmyJoeJ> NA yes, you say God's canon is not affected by our knowledge or ignorance. But what about OUR knowledge of God's canon that forms the bible?
[21:46] < NAhome > I will demonstrate your error, if you will simply respond. What is the date of the Muratorian fragment?
[21:46] < NAhome > You *did* graduate with a Master's degree in a theological field, did you not, sir?
[21:46] <JimmyJoeJ> NA care to answer the question, instead of going off into hiding behind dates and quotes? It's a simple question
[21:47] < NAhome > You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? Amazing!
[21:47] < NAhome > What did you study, if you don't know the first thing about the history of the canon? Well, since you don't seem to know, let me try to get you up to speed.
[21:47] <JimmyJoeJ> NA you want to hide in the thickets of voluminous quotes and dates of documents, rather than address questions of simple logic
[21:47] < NAhome > The Muratorian fragment is dated to the end of the second century. Between that fragment and Athanasius' canon you have a period of less than 200 years.
[21:47] <JimmyJoeJ> NA simply answer the question
[21:48] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so when was the canon of our bible formed as we have it today? When do you contend this is?
[21:48] < NAhome > During that period of time the knowledge of the canon grew: that is, since there were no fax machines, etc., to distribute written literature, there was a period of time when books like Revelation were unknown in certain parts of the Roman Empire. Hence, during that period, our knowledge of the canon grew.
[21:48] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so when was the canon of our bible formed as we have it today? When do you contend this is?
[21:49] < NAhome > I guess I can understand your mistake: given that you know nothing about that period of history and have never done any meaningful reading in the primary sources, you could come to all sorts of false conclusions as a result.
[21:49] < NAhome > Quite understandable, but, given your strident attacks upon me, I assumed, wrongly, that you had actually done some level of meaningful study.
[21:50] <JimmyJoeJ> You say our knowledge of the canon grew - did this knowledge become perfect? When did our knowledge of the canon stop "growing" and was finally formed? Of course, you say in your book that our knowledge always grows and matures, and so you really say we can never really settle God's canon
[21:50] < NAhome > Now, do you really want me to add this conversation to the website?
[21:51] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so when was the canon of our bible formed as we have it today? When do you contend this is?
[21:51] <JimmyJoeJ> NA if you would answer the question, please
[21:51] < NAhome > That is untrue. It is a lie to say I have alleged or teach such a thing. That was not my intention, I have told you so, and given your abject ignorance of the backgrounds of the subject, I suggest that you not continue to make the same error repeatedly.
[21:52] < NAhome > Now, at the moment, I am going to conclude, given your refusal to respond, that the following is true: 1) you have no patristic citations to back up your assertion made recently; 2) you have never read Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter, and 3) you have never studied the Muratorian Fragment.
[21:52] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so how long between the death of the apostles and the formation of the true canon of the bible were people wandering lost without the comfort and guidance of sola scriptura, since "scriptura" (the bible) was not fully formed?
[21:53] <JimmyJoeJ> NA you want to hide behind voluminous quotes, I want you to answer simple questions
[21:53] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so how long between the death of the apostles and the formation of the true canon of the bible were people wandering lost without the comfort and guidance of sola scriptura, since "scriptura" (the bible) was not fully formed?
[21:53] < NAhome > Another excellent example of your ignorance of the position you decry, JJJ. I assume, from this errant argument, that you have never read any Protestant works on this topic? Could I ask you, for example, to cite what works you have read?
[21:53] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so how long between the death of the apostles and the formation of the true canon of the bible were people wandering lost without the comfort and guidance of sola scriptura, since "scriptura" (the bible) was not fully formed?
[21:54] < NAhome > For the argument is vacuous: first, the NT church did have Scripture, called the Old Testament, which was normative for them. Secondly, the early fathers of the period cited Scripture vociferously without once mentioning Rome's alleged supremacy, invalidating your argument. And finally, given that Rome did not dogmatically define the canon until 1546, your argument backfires upon you. :-)
[21:55] < NAhome > What works on the canon have you read, JJJ?
[21:56] < NAhome > How about articles? Chapters in books?
[21:56] < NAhome > Roman Catholic ones would be fine, even....anything?
[21:56] <pascoeTAXS> tracts?
[21:56] < NAhome > Business cards?
[21:56] < NAhome > Sky writing?
[21:57] <js4jc-lrks> Post-it notes...
[21:57] <pascoeTAXS> TV commercials?
[21:58] < NAhome > I think he fell asleep. :-)
[21:58] <pascoeTAXS> he should ping out any moment.
[21:59] < NAhome > Yup.
[21:59] < NAhome > [21:58] [JimmyJoeJ PING reply]: 0secs <---- nope. :-)
[21:59] <pascoe> NAhome: maybe he's quickly reading some sources on canon so he can cite them.
[22:00] < NAhome > The thought crossed my mind as well.
[22:00] < NAhome > Well, no reason to hang around if he's done with the conversation. If I were him, I'd surely be done with it as well.
[22:00] < NAhome > The other possibility is he's stacking.
[22:00] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so when was the canon of YOUR bible settled? When was it finally formed?
[22:00] < NAhome > He's done that before.
[22:00] < NAhome > LOL
[22:00] < NAhome > Go to bed, JJJ. The battle is lost. :-)
[22:02] <JimmyJoeJ> You claim that "Rome did not dogmatically define the canon until 1546", when was the canon of YOUR bible formed?
[22:02] < NAhome > Sorry, JJJ. You are way over your unanswered simple questions limit for the evening. :-)
[22:03] <JimmyJoeJ> NA not really, it's just one question I've had to repeat a lot of times
[22:03] < NAhome > So, JJJ....never cracked the spine of a book on the canon in an entire Master's degree? How did that happen?
[22:03] < NAhome > Is that common in Romanism, btw?
[22:05] <JimmyJoeJ> NA as I've said before, you wish to hide behind voluminous quotes from numerous sources. You want to hide in the thickets of this quote and that, twisting them and selectively quoting so they look as if they support your position. I have shown by your own words what lies behind your position: an uncertain bible, and an unknowable canon of God's scripture, which we can only feebly grasp at as "our knowledge grows and matures"
[22:06] < NAhome > Translated that means, "Yes, I have not done the first bit of original study on this topic, and you have utterly shredded my arguments, but as long as I repeat them with force, they will be good enough for me."
[22:06] < NAhome > You are the one hiding, JJJ. We can all see that.
[22:07] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so when was the canon of our bible formed as we have it today? When do you contend this is?
[22:08] <pascoe> JJJ: I'm afraid it's true. your approach won't get you anything, since if Rome didn't have a formal canon until the 16th century, it was no better off than the rest of the Church for 15 centuries. yet the canon was recognized all that time.
[22:08] <JimmyJoeJ> You say our knowledge of the canon grew - did this knowledge become perfect? When did our knowledge of the canon stop "growing" and was finally formed? Of course, you say in your book that our knowledge always grows and matures, and so you really say we can never really settle God's canon
[22:08] < NAhome > It is amazing to me that you would promote your arguments so boldly, on a single subject, when you have not invested the first bit of meaningful study into the area: either in primary source materials, or secondary works, or in the writings of the position you decry.
[22:08] <JimmyJoeJ> NA is OUR canon as found in the bible the exact same as God's canon?
[22:08] < NAhome > I answered that one more than half an hour ago, JJJ. This is getting really boring.
[22:09] <pascoe> JJJ: God is the one who preserves His Word. as soon as you come to believe this principle, your whole line of argument will evaporate.
[22:09] < NAhome > [21:33] <JimmyJoeJ> NA no infallible canon, no infallible bible. is OUR canon as found in the bible the exact same as God's canon?
[22:09] < NAhome > [21:33] <NAhome> Yes, the canon of God's people (I exclude Rome) is accurate and perfect: not because of those who recognized it passively, but because of the promise of God regarding His purpose for the giving of Scripture itself.
[22:09] < NAhome > Yup, half an hour ago. :-)
[22:11] <JimmyJoeJ> PASCOE it was "no better off than the rest of the church"? So that would mean your version of the "church" did not have a formal canon, either, and is just what is recognized by man as being part of God's canon. So if our recognition of God's canon is prone to error, so is the bible that is formed by our recognition/knowledge of God's canon
[22:12] < NAhome > Well, thanks for the chat, JJJ. I will now make a prediction. Within a short period of time I will find you claiming, in here, or elsewhere, that no one has ever responded to you; that you have always refuted me, etc. and etc. Yet, as anyone can see this evening, you have simply fallen apart under cross examination.

The conversation then drifted off to the Boston scandal and a few other things.  I surely was not seeking to establish myself as a prophet, but the prediction I made came to fruition in less than 24 hours!  The very next evening JJJ was back, and it was as if nothing whatsoever had happened the night before...

[17:26] < NA27away > wb JJJ.
[17:27] <JimmyJoeJ> Hello NA27
[17:28] <JimmyJoeJ> Any additions to your website I should look forward to?
[17:29] < NA27 > I'm adding lots of stuff today, actually. Might throw in last nights log, but that's hardly a high priority.
[17:30] <JimmyJoeJ> All of it, or with selective editing?
[17:30] <JimmyJoeJ> I'll bet you won't be throwing in the log of the night before that!!
[17:30] < NA27 > lol
[17:36] <JimmyJoeJ> I wouldn't imagine you would want to make it much of a priority. The error of your position can
[17:37] <JimmyJoeJ> not be hidden no matter how many long quotes and ancient dates you wish to hide behind
[17:37] < NA27 > lol. You really don't get it, JJJ. :-)
[17:38] <JimmyJoeJ> NA even those on your side commented last night that you were clearly avoiding questions
[17:39] <JimmyJoeJ> No infallible canon, no infallible bible
[17:40] < NA27 > LOL
[17:40] < NA27 > I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone so utterly self-deceived.
[17:41] < NA27 > It's been less than 24 hours since you were completely shut down, without the first ability to answer question after question, and you have managed to forget all of it. Incredible, truly incredible.
[17:42] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 I said " No infallible canon, no infallible bible." Now, how is that wrong? How is that self-deception? If you can't answer that obvious contradiction in your position, you show that I am not the one who is self-deceived
[17:42] < NA27 > Truly unbelievable.
[17:42] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 and am I self-deceived that some who support you mentioned to me that you avoided questions?
[17:43] < NA27 > And they are?
[17:44] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 unlike you, I don't breach confidences, unlike when you trumpeted all over #apologetics that a former Mormon of your acquaintance was involved (allegedly) in a homosexual relationship
[17:44] < NA27 > lol
[17:45] < NA27 > I see. In other words, like every other time you are asked a direct question, you have no answer.
[17:46] <JimmyJoeJ> Have you an explanation yet for how you have an infallible bible without any infallible recognition of what writing is scripture? I see. In other words, like every other time you are asked a direct question, you have no answer.
[17:46] < NA27 > lol
[17:47] < NA27 > Unreal. Fully refuted last night, left without a word, the whole canon issue laid out before you, and in less than 24 hours, you are back to square one as if it never happened. Truly incredible.
[17:47] < NA27 > As I noted, a case of spiritual deception like unto which I have honestly not seen.
[17:48] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 not as unreal as your claims....
[17:48] < NA27 > One problem: I have the logs. :-)
[17:48] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 So do I
[17:49] < Hendrik > Well, we all have logs, now what are we gonna do with em
[17:49] <JimmyJoeJ> NA just refused to play your game of battling quotations and ancient citations. I showed the simple fact of your position's contradiction of logic
[17:50] < NA27 > JJJ is giving us an example of self-deception that reaches new heights, Hen. Truly amazing stuff.
[17:50] < Hendrik > I see. Jimmy, are you not playing nice?
[17:51] <JimmyJoeJ> HEN will you ask the same of NA27, or are you just leaping to an assumption?
[17:52] < NA27 > Not a matter of nice or not nice: I refuted JJJ last night, fully. He was left with his mouth shut, and all who were here saw it.
[17:52] < Hendrik > Well, I know him, and I've been in the channel with you before, so....I'd say I am assuming that his version is probably accurate
[17:52] < NA27 > Now, a few hours later, it never happened.
[17:52] < Hendrik > oh really...I don't have them logs
[17:52] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 really? Then why did you leave as I was still posting, claiming the need for sleep?
[17:52] <JimmyJoeJ> IF what you say is true?
[17:52] < NA27 > I'm adding the logs even now to the page, Hendrik. You'll find it interesting.
[17:53] < Hendrik > okay
[17:53] <JimmyJoeJ> I doubt the full logs...
[17:53] < Hendrik > hehe
[17:53] < NA27 > Till then, JJJ....what was your answer to the following questions, such as "Have you read Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter" and "What is the date of the Muratorian Fragment?" and "Please list the books and articles, written by Romanists or others, on the canon that you have read"?
[17:54] < NA27 > He calls that "hiding behind citations" Hen. :-)
[17:54] < NA27 > In other words, "Don't ask me to do original reading! I have my mind made up!"
[17:55] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 as I pointed out last night, that is incredibly irrelevant. I refuse to get into your "battling quotes" game. I have asked simple questions of you, which you have been unable to answer, requiring no quotes at all, just simple questions of logic. Please show how your questions are relevant to my statement "no infallible canon, no infallible bible"
[17:55] < NA27 > JJJ has not done the work of a college freshman on the subject, yet, he insists that we "answer" his "question." When we do, and he does not understand it, he says we are "refusing" to do so!
[17:56] < NA27 > It's a never ending cycle that can go nowhere for JJJ is simply beyond his ability to engage a meaningful response.
[17:57] <JimmyJoeJ> So "what is the date of the Muratorian Fragment?" is a meaningful response that answers and fully refutes my contention that you can't have an infallible bible without an infallible recognition of what belongs to the bible?
[17:58] < Hendrik > There is an infallible recognition of the Bible
[17:58] <JimmyJoeJ> Will have to get going in a minute, going out. Was just online to check ebay on a wonderful rosary auction
[17:58] < Hendrik > lol
[17:59] < NA27 > Yes. You made the assertion that my book said we "grow" in our knowledge of the canon, hence, we don't know the canon. I was demonstrating your ignorance of the context of my statements. It is useless playing your game, JJJ, since you simply don't know enough about the issue to understand a meaningful answer, and, it is obvious, you intend to remain in your ignorance.
[17:59] <JimmyJoeJ> HENDRIK?? REALLY??? Tell that to NA27, who denies there is any infallible recognition of what is scripture!
[17:59] < NA27 > Hendrik: Note what I told him last night.....
[17:59] <JimmyJoeJ> HENDRIK?? REALLY??? Tell that to NA27, who denies there is any infallible recognition of what is scripture!
[17:59] < Hendrik > I saw you, Jimmy
[18:00] < NA27 > [21:33] <JimmyJoeJ> NA no infallible canon, no infallible bible. is OUR canon as found in the bible the exact same as God's canon?
[18:00] < NA27 > [21:33] < NAhome > Yes, the canon of God's people (I exclude Rome) is accurate and perfect: not because of those who recognized it passively, but because of the promise of God regarding His purpose for the giving of Scripture itself.
[18:00] < NA27 > He later said I had never answered, so I posted that TWICE.
[18:00] < NA27 > And now note how he is ignoring the twice offered answer AGAIN.
[18:00] < NA27 > I have never seen a more blind man in my life.
[18:01] < Hendrik > Did you see your answer that time, Jimmy?
[18:01] <JimmyJoeJ> HENDRIK one time on IRC I quoted a definition of sola scriptura from NA27's books to someone, and NA27 was also talking on the channel, so he was definitely present. The person said I was falsely defining sola scriptura, that I was setting up a straw man by making a ridiculous definition of sola scriptura which anyone could disprove
[18:02] < NA27 > He'll never give you a straight answer, Hendrik. He can't. This is his life: all of it.
[18:02] < Hendrik > Jimmy, you aren't going to see it, are you
[18:02] <JimmyJoeJ> I responded to that answer, which contradicts what he writes in his books. It just became convenient for NA27 to suddenly deny his writings
[18:02] < NA27 > ROFL.
[18:02] < NA27 > See?
[18:02] < Hendrik > By the way, you will be sorely disappointed going to the throne of Glory with beads and trinkets
[18:03] < NA27 > The man admits he hasn't the first level of original study in the area, but, he has the arrogance to say to someone who *does* that since HE doesn't understand their answer, THEY must be contradicting themselves!
[18:04] <JimmyJoeJ> He has said often before that there can be no infallible recognition of scripture since people are fallible, and has gone on to say that our recognition of the canon doesn't affect it
[18:05] < Hendrik > You don't want an answer to your question, Jimmy, you're on a vendetta
[18:05] < Hendrik > And it isn't pleasant to watch, so I'll see you later
[18:05] < NA27 > Can't blame you, Hen, can't blame you.
[18:07] <JimmyJoeJ> Well, was hoping the logs you claimed you were just putting up would be on your website by now...
[18:08] <JimmyJoeJ> Gotta get going. Won the rosary auction, by the way
[18:08] < NA27 > I don't work on your time schedule, JJJ.
[18:09] < NA27 > Refuting you, and documenting it for the dozenth time, really is not overly "up there" on the list.
[18:09] <JimmyJoeJ> Neither do I, apparently. See you later
[18:09] *** JimmyJoeJ has left IRC

Now, upon posting all of this, JJJ came into channel and alleged I had "heavily edited" the logs.  But, instead of meaning that as most folks mean it when they say "edited," what he meant was that I did not include the log of the previous nights' conversation that led to this one.  He said:

[15:42] <JimmyJoeJ> In fact, that is part of the conversation you posted in the second night's conversation. I say you won't dare print the last conversation, and you show by your editing of it that I was right. Anyone carefully reading the log can see it

So, to prove him wrong again, here's that log!  First, I give the conversation from the previous day between JJJ, my own 13-year old daugther Summer, and Hendrik:

[18:51] *** Joins: JimmyJoeJ (KMcAll@AC9DB2DC.ipt.aol.com)
[19:12] < sumlurx > hello
[19:13] <JimmyJoeJ> hello
[19:13] <JimmyJoeJ> Not many people here
[19:13] < sumlurx > not really
[19:13] < sumlurx > not much to say, i guess! :)
[19:14] <JimmyJoeJ> Was there many answers on my question after I left last time you were in? The question was how do we know the Gospel of Matthew is scripture and the Gospel of Thomas is not
[19:14] *** Joins: `Hendrik (askme@dial-60.r5.ncsdny.infoave.net)
[19:15] < sumlurx > um, i dont remember
[19:15] *** Quits: Hendrik (askme@dial-20.r3.ncsdny.infoave.net ) (Ping timeout for Hendrik[dial-20.r3.ncsdny.infoave.net] )
[19:15] < sumlurx > actually, yes
[19:15] < sumlurx > there was
[19:15] *** `Hendrik is now known as Hendrik
[19:15] < sumlurx > i wish i rembemered them :))
[19:16] <JimmyJoeJ> That question kind of shows that some people had to sit down and decide what was scripture and what was not. If it was possible that their decision could be mistaken, then the bible could have mistakes in it. If it was impossible for their decision to be mistaken, then the bible could not have mistakes in it
[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> Those people decided that the Gospel of Thomas was not scripture, and they decided that the Gospel of Matthew was scripture
[19:18] < sumlurx > well i dont think anyone had quite *that* resonse :)
[19:18] < sumlurx > response*
[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> I don't think they would
[19:18] *** js-movie is now known as js4jc-lrks
[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> They wouldn't dare ask that question
[19:19] < sumlurx > well, i wish u had stuck around for their responses.
[19:20] <JimmyJoeJ> Searching for truth is something God would want us to do. Lies are of the devil, truth is of God. And when we have found truth, asking questions just makes us know more about the truth
[19:20] < sumlurx > yea
[19:21] < sumlurx > but u never stuck around for the response! :) maybe u had to go, i dunno, but alot of people answered.
[19:22] <JimmyJoeJ> I saw one response: that it was decided the Gospel of Thomas was historically inaccurate and had heretical ideas, etc. Well, someone had to sit down and decide those things. That was my point: that people sat down and looked at writing and decided what was God-inspired scripture and what was not.
[19:22] <JimmyJoeJ> I said before the responses that I had to go, and if you remember BUZZ invited me to leave right away
[19:23] < sumlurx > Well, i dunno, but if it differed from other writings, in major ways, why would it be god-inspired?
[19:23] <JimmyJoeJ> I do not think it is God inspired
[19:23] < sumlurx > okay
[19:23] < sumlurx > neither do i
[19:23] <JimmyJoeJ> The point was that people had to sit down, say what differed from other writings, and make a judgement on what they thought was God-inspired
[19:24] < sumlurx > but didnt god lead them?
[19:24] <JimmyJoeJ> Yes, I believe God led them
[19:24] < sumlurx > i mean, wouldnt he want us to know what is his word and what isnt?
[19:25] <JimmyJoeJ> But many people say they could have been wrong in what they chose as scripture, that they could have made errors. They are saying those people were "fallible" in their decision on what was scripture
[19:25] < sumlurx > hmm
[19:25] < sumlurx > but would god lead them to a lie?
[19:25] <JimmyJoeJ> SUM yes, God would want us to know what is His Word and what isn't
[19:26] < sumlurx > right
[19:26] < sumlurx > okay
[19:26] <JimmyJoeJ> SUM no, God wouldn't lead them to a lie. I believe God led them so they could not possibly have been wrong on what is scripture and what is not scripture
[19:27] <JimmyJoeJ> But other people believe they could have been in error. Those people say the decision on what is God's writing is a "fallible" decision, meaning a decision that is possibly wrong
[19:28] < sumlurx > who are these people that you are referring to?
[19:29] <JimmyJoeJ> Well, a lot of people on IRC tell me that because the people who decided what was scripture were human beings, they could have been in error because people are not perfect and can make mistakes
[19:29] < sumlurx > okay, there are a *lot* of people on IRC! :)
[19:29] < sumlurx > are you referring to catholics, protestants, mormons...?
[19:31] <JimmyJoeJ> I wasn't really referring to groups, but it has been mostly from Protestants. You see, Protestants say that the bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith.
[19:32] < Hendrik > JJJ, did you infallibly decide that the people who decided the canon were infallible?
[19:32] < sumlurx > well, other peeps in my family need the computer. bbiab
[19:32] *** sumlurx is now known as sumaway
[19:33] <JimmyJoeJ> HENDRIK no, but fortunately you don't have to have infallible knowledge to have certain knowledge. What YOU claim implies that unless you have infallible knowledge you have no knowledge at all!
[19:34] <JimmyJoeJ> Time for bed
[19:34] < Hendrik > gnight
[19:35] <JimmyJoeJ> Have to get up early and do overtime at work
[19:35] < Hendrik > The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article V
[19:35] <JimmyJoeJ> Good night
[19:35] < Hendrik > Whence the Holy Scriptures Derive Their Dignity and Authority
[19:35] < Hendrik > "We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such,
[19:35] < Hendrik > but more especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they carry the evidence thereof in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled."
[19:35] *** Quits: JimmyJoeJ (KMcAll@AC9DB2DC.ipt.aol.com ) (Leaving )

And here, in its entirety, is the section JJJ said I'd never post:

[17:00] <JimmyJoeJ> HENDRIK want to finish a question/discussion that began a night or so ago. Those who put the bible together, who went throught writings and said what was God-inspired and what wasn't, was it possible they were in error as to their choice of what was scripture?
[17:02] *** NA27away is now known as NA27
[17:03] <JimmyJoeJ> Hello NA27
[17:03] < NA27 > Evening.
[17:04] *** StokerAway is now known as Stoker
[17:04] <JimmyJoeJ> Those who put the bible together, who went through writings and said what was God-inspired and what wasn't, was it possible they were in error as to their choice of what was scripture?
[17:05] < NA27 > So how 'bout them Diamondbacks, eh, JJJ? Hope you aren't a Yankees fan. :-)
[17:05] <JimmyJoeJ> What about them? I was asking about the bible...
[17:07] < NA27 > JJJ, you are asking about nothing. :-)
[17:07] < NA27 > Ask implicates a desire to learn. Thou hast none. :-)
[17:07] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH welcome to #apologetics....
[17:08] <crash> JJJ are you saying that it is possible that our bible is not the word of God?
[17:08] <crash> since you addressed me
[17:09] < NA27 > crash: Here, save yourself a great deal of time: www.aomin.org/JimmyJoeJSaga.html
[17:09] <Jason1646> LOL
[17:10] *crash* already read it just trying to draw him out
[17:10] < NA27 > JJJ has asked the same question in every venue he's ever been in for MANY years now. I used to go into channels on AOL where the ENTIRE ROOM had him on ignore because he would sit there and ask the same question, over and over and over again. He makes the phrase "broken record" pale into insignificance.
[17:10] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH no, I am asking a question. NA27 in his books says the recognition of what writing is scripture is not the important thing, what really creates the canon of scripture is God's act of inspiration. NA however does not mention how WE know what GOD'S canon is, and if the bible and God's canon are the same
[17:11] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH it is actually NA27 who suggests by the logical outcome of his statements that we might not have God's Word in the bible
[17:11] <crash> well don't try to feed me what someone else thinks
[17:12] <crash> I think NA27 can do just fine himself
[17:12] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH why not ask him to answer the question then? Let us see
[17:13] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 Those who put the bible together, who went through writings and said what was God-inspired and what wasn't, was it possible they were in error as to their choice of what was scripture?
[17:13] <JimmyJoeJ> You say I have no desire to learn, but perhaps someone else in the room does
[17:13] <crash> so you are saying that our bible is inspired by God?
[17:13] < NA27 > That's why I provided the URL, JJJ. :-)
[17:13] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH I believe it is
[17:14] *** Joins: Hendrik (askme@dial-21.r4.ncsdny.infoave.net)
[17:14] <crash> so I believe NA believes it is inspired...no?
[17:14] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH can't tell what NA27 thinks, he refuses to answer the question, and his books say it is possible those selecting the canon of the bible got it wrong
[17:15] < Hendrik > Which book says that, J?
[17:15] <JimmyJoeJ> HENDRIK Roman Catholic Controversy
[17:15] <crash> got page and quote?
[17:16] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH not at the moment, perhaps NA27 could actually answer while I run upstairs and get the book
[17:16] <crash> you are the one bringing accusation
[17:16] < NA27 > You need the exercise, JJJ. :-)
[17:16] <crash> burden of proof lies with you JJJ
[17:17] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH as I said, I am going upstairs to get it. Let me, will you?
[17:17] <crash> I'm not stopping you
[17:18] <crash> I think you need to tone down your excitability knob just a bit too JJJ
[17:20] < Hendrik > 22:23] <JimmyJoeJ> The point was that people had to sit down, say what differed from other writings, and make a judgement on what they thought was God-inspired
[17:20] < Hendrik > [22:23] <sumlurx> but didnt god lead them?
[17:20] < Hendrik > [22:24] <JimmyJoeJ> Yes, I believe God led them
[17:20] < Hendrik > [22:24] <sumlurx> i mean, wouldnt he want us to know what is his word and what isnt?
[17:21] <JimmyJoeJ> The Roman Catholic Controversy, pp. 92-95
[17:21] <crash> go ahead
[17:21] <crash> I don't have the book
[17:22] <crash> ~TRCC pp 92-95
[17:22] <JimmyJoeJ> White describes the canon as a "function" of scripture - as not just a listing of books, but a STATEMENT as to what is inspired
[17:22] <crash> thought I'd give it a try
[17:22] <JimmyJoeJ> Let me give one direct quote from those many pages that might illuminate what they are saying as a whole...
[17:23] <crash> ok
[17:25] <JimmyJoeJ> "The canon is one issue, and it comes from God's action of inspiring the Scriptures. Our knowledge of canon is another. Our knowledge can grow and mature, as it did in times in history. But the canon is not defined by us nor is it affected by our knowledge or ignorance." NOTE those important words! "Our knowledge of the canon is another. Our knowledge can grow and mature, as it did in times of history.
[17:25] <JimmyJoeJ> "
[17:25] <JimmyJoeJ> Our knowledge of what is SCRIPTURE CAN CHANGE!
[17:25] *** Joins: SursumCor (~lcrocker@dsl-64-128-186-101.telocity.com)
[17:25] <JimmyJoeJ> The list of what we call scripture CAN CHANGE AS OUR KNOWLEDGE GROWS AND MATURES!!!!
[17:26] * NA27 guesses JJJ doesn't like Newman. :-)
[17:27] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27, do you have anything to add besides little side jibes? Can our knowledge of what is scripture change, as you said in your book?
[17:27] < NA27 > No, JJJ, I have nothing to add to what has been explained to you many times before.
[17:28] <Jason1646> JJJ, did the knowledge of what Scripture was change before the Council of Trent's listing of the canon?
[17:28] <crash> so what's your point
[17:29] <crash> sorry hadn't scrolled down
[17:30] <crash> JJJ now wait a minute I've seen no side jabs here
[17:30] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH you see, NA27 does say in his book that the canon of scripture is a function of God's inspiring certain writing, and that our knowledge of this can change - therefore this clearly shows NA27 saying that the bible is not definitely the Word of God, our listing of what is scripture rests on man's knowledge which changes and grows, and is not "affected by our knowledge or ignorance". So NA27 says we might be ignorant of scripture that is stil
[17:30] <crash> Jibes
[17:30] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH look at "* NA27 guesses JJJ doesn't like Newman. :-)"
[17:30] <Jason1646> JJJ, did the knowledge of what Scripture was change at all in the church before the Council of Trent's listing of the canon?
[17:31] <crash> I don't know what that means
[17:31] <JimmyJoeJ> JASON who says Trent listed scripture? Trent merely reaffirmed the listing that had been around for hundreds of years
[17:31] <Jason1646> When was it infallibly declared?
[17:31] < NA27 > Just seems really strange that one who believes in the Bodily Assumption of Mary would make the complaint you did. Of course, you have been shown that your entire argument is self-refuting, and you've never had an answer for that, hence, why should I be surprised?
[17:31] *crash* he has a point about the newman thing whatever that means
[17:32] <JimmyJoeJ> MA27 then answer the question. Those who put the bible together, who went through writings and said what was God-inspired and what wasn't, was it possible they were in error as to their choice of what was scripture?
[17:32] < NA27 > I've already answered it, JJJ. You know it, everyone else does, too. Move on.
[17:33] *** Quits: Stoker (FastStoker@AC8562B0.ipt.aol.com ) (Ping timeout for Stoker[AC8562B0.ipt.aol.com] )
[17:33] <JimmyJoeJ> I don't know that at all. In fact, I know quite the opposite, as do many others
[17:33] <crash> JJJ can you make your points without getting all torqued?
[17:33] *** Joins: Hendrik (askme@dial-21.r4.ncsdny.infoave.net)
[17:34] <crash> could you for my benefit answer your own question JJJ?
[17:34] < NA27 > That is probably a good direction to go, crash.
[17:35] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH OK, I will answer what NA27 won't. I asked "Those who put the bible together, who went through writings and said what was God-inspired and what wasn't, was it possible they were in error as to their choice of what was scripture?" I say it was not, because God would not allow this error
[17:36] <crash> I mean Paul talks of Peter's writings as scripture
[17:36] <Jason1646> Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how much noise RCs make over epistemological questions that they can't answer half as satisfactorily themselves.
[17:36] <crash> and Peter of Pauls
[17:36] < NA27 > Ask JJJ how he knows the canon infallibly: does he have infallible knowledge of Rome's decrees on the subject? Is he aware of the contradiction between the earlier canon lists and Trent regarding the list of Apocryphal books? Gregory's rejection of them? And how does he know for certain that the source of his knowledge (Rome) will not "re-interpret" her previous writings?
[17:36] <crash> now now
[17:36] < NA27 > And if he simply throws up his hands and says, "Rome tells me so!" then, of course, the question becomes, "How do you know Rome has this authority?"
[17:37] < NA27 > And in the process it will become clear to all that JJJ has no answer to the question he repeatedly asks of everyone else.
[17:37] <Jason1646> ... and then he goes to mt 16:18 to prove it! Checkmate! :-)
[17:37] < NA27 > It is a foil, a weapon he uses to club some, and then simply annoy others.
[17:38] < NA27 > In the process. the ultimate authority of Scripture is sacrificed, however.
[17:38] <Elliot> Not annoyed here. i find the question very interesting.
[17:38] <crash> It seems to me JJJ that what you are saying is that those who selected the canon were infalible are you not?
[17:38] < NA27 > 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15) 4,15 James is on the Phone 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15)
[17:38] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH yes, Peter cites Paul's writing as scripture. But another question is, what DID Paul write? One question for the early church as to what was scripture was the question of what did Paul write? There were forgeries of Paul's writings as Paul mentions, and it was questioned whether Paul wrote Hebrews or not
[17:39] <crash> true about Heb
[17:39] <Jason1646> Hmmm, you mean like the pseduo-isidorian decretals - papal forgeries?
[17:39] <crash> pseduo-huh?
[17:39] <Jason1646> pseudo that is
[17:40] <crash> pseudo-what?
[17:40] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH no, my decisions do not decide church teaching, what the bible includes etc. My decisions are not guided infallibly by God as the decision of the church
[17:40] <crash> I wasn't talking about YOUR decisions
[17:40] <Jason1646> What infallibly guided your decision as to the church's infallibility then?
[17:41] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH I just said that I am not infallible, that is what you asked
[17:41] <crash> I was asking if those who selected which books to include in canon were infallable
[17:42] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH yes they were, because they were guided infallibly by God. They were not allowed to fall into error
[17:42] <Jason1646> Oh well ... have fun, crash. :-)
[17:43] <crash> Ok so we agree that the bible we have is the word of God right?
[17:43] <JimmyJoeJ> JASON human recognition does NOT create the church, human recognition to an extent DID create the bible.
[17:43] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH yes
[17:43] <crash> so what is the beef?
[17:44] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH the "beef" is ultimately over authority. My question points out that we have an infallible church
[17:44] <crash> that's quite a jump from the bible being inspired by God to infallible church
[17:45] <crash> whether or not we have an infallible church has no bearing on the inspiration of the bible
[17:45] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH the church historically chose what books are in the bible. Without a church infallibly guided by God, you don't have a bible infallibly recognized as to what is God-inspired scripture
[17:46] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH it does, since the church chose the bible. Fallibility leads to fallibility
[17:46] *** Joins: Martyr (~pirch@HSE-Hamilton-ppp3514533.sympatico.ca)
[17:46] <crash> so has the church infallibly recognized that pedophilia is ok?
[17:46] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH and you complain about me!
[17:47] <crash> well it's been swept under for so long
[17:47] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH where has the church stated that pedophilia is OK as doctrine? You know very well it hasn't
[17:47] <crash> I know
[17:48] <crash> but to say that God guided in the selection of canon is a far cry from saying that everything the church does is infallible
[17:49] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH NA27 claims in his book that the church is fallible and prone to doctrinal error, and that our knowledge has no effect on the canon of the bible
[17:49] <crash> ok
[17:49] <crash> so
[17:49] <JimmyJoeJ> so ultimately that leads to a fallible bible, since the canon was according to NA27 a fallible decision of the church
[17:50] <crash> no it doesn't
[17:50] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 I do NOT say everything the church does is infallible
[17:50] <crash> that's what infallible means though
[17:50] <Martyr> LOL that NA makes up his own rules as he goes
[17:51] < NA27 > Funny thing is, JJJ says God wouldn't let the canon be corrupted, and I agree: I simply place my confidence in the canon in the God who inspired Scripture, not in a later Roman Church that killed the martyrs. :-)
[17:51] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH let me just illustrate it. 1. The church is fallible, can make errors. 2. The church chose the list of canon, this list forms the books we know today as the bible 3. This decision was a fallible decision, capable of error. 4. This fallible decision created the bible we have today, so it creates a fallible bible
[17:52] < NA27 > 1: Correct 2: Incorrect, even according to Augustine; 3....is irrelevant. :-)
[17:52] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH no, the church is only infallible in matters of FAITH and MORALS that are FORMALLY DECLARED AS DOGMA
[17:52] <crash> that's like saying 1)the moon is white 2)cheese is white 3)therefore the moon is cheese
[17:53] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH not at all, how is it like that?
[17:53] <crash> can't have it both ways JJJ
[17:53] <crash> either it is infallible or it is not
[17:54] <crash> if it is infallible in matters of faith and morals then surely it could be infallible in every other area
[17:54] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH not at all, let me show you. You say "<crash> either it is infallible or it is not" The church is only infallible in its jurisdiction of authority, just as a county sheriff doesn't have power outside his county
[17:55] <crash> ok so where do you get the idea of infallible church to begin with
[17:56] <crash> God's inspiration of the bible is totally outside of the infallibility of the church
[17:56] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH establishment by Christ, who promised the Holy Spirit to guide it, and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. The bible written by church members also calls the CHURCH "the pillar and foundation of truth" It does NOT say that about the bible alone
[17:57] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH you say " God's inspiration of the bible is totally outside of the infallibility of the church" That can't be, because historically the bible was chosen by the church, so it falls within church bounds. Now, if the bible had dropped from heaven as it is today without church involvement, you would be right
[17:57] <crash> I think you mean "Rock" and that was refering to the fact that Jesus is the messiah
[17:58] < NA27 > Notice how I pointed out the error in JJJ's syllogism, and that went by without the first peep in response. :-)
[17:58] <crash> but the church did not write the bible
[17:58] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH it chose what writings were scripture and which were not
[17:58] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 notice how I asked you a question and didn't get the first peep in response
[17:59] <JimmyJoeJ> CRASH essentially the church by the guidance of God edited the bible
[17:59] < NA27 > That is untrue, of course. You have been refuted dozens of times, your selective memory notwithstanding. Pray tell, please quote the council that claimed "we edited the Bible"?
[17:59] < NA27 > Quote the patristic testimony to the Fathers who said, "We chose the books of Scripture"?
[18:00] <crash> both of you stop it or I'll send you to your rooms without supper
[18:00] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 so there were no church councils that selected the canon of the bible? When was the bible formed?
[18:00] *** Alfonso is on IRC
[18:00] < NA27 > That has been explained to you to, but that is not an answer. You made an assertion. Back it up. :-)
[18:01] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 when was the bible formed as we have it today?
[18:01] < NA27 > Surely you should be able to produce DOZENS of patristic citations saying what you are saying!
[18:01] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 when was the bible formed as we have it today? Come on, answer a question for once
[18:01] < NA27 > Come on, JJJ. This should be easy!
[18:01] <Martyr> well then answer him if it is easy
[18:01] < NA27 > You just said the church did X. Show us the citations JJJ! I'm really looking for them!
[18:01] < NA27 > You can help him out if you want to, Martyr.
[18:01] <crash> pick up with you later
[18:02] <JimmyJoeJ> NA so you are contending the bible dropped from heaven as it is today without the church laying a finger to it or deciding what writing was scripture?
[18:02] < NA27 > I'd like to see these things.
[18:02] *** crash is now known as crashaway
[18:02] < NA27 > I'm contending nothing. You made an assertion. Back it up, por favor!
[18:02] <JimmyJoeJ> NA church councils formed the canon. You know this yourself
[18:02] < NA27 > 1,2( 12,2) 1,2( 12,2) 1,2( 12,2) 11,2 We are waiting for the citations from Councils or Fathers saying, "We, under divine guidance, edited the Bible and chose the books of the Bible." 1,2( 12,2) 1,2( 12,2) 1,2( 12,2)
[18:03] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 why should there be any?
[18:03] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 how was the bible formed, then?
[18:03] < NA27 > Thanks, JJJ. Maybe I'll add this one to the file....
[18:03] < NA27 > 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15) 4,15 James is Away. Lord willing, he will return. :) 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15) 14,15( 0,15)
[18:03] *** NA27 is now known as NA27away
[18:03] < NA27away > Talk about self-destruction....
[18:03] <Martyr> lol
[18:03] <Martyr> why does he never answer the question put to him??
[18:03] < NA27away > Martyr: I have done so, many times.
[18:04] < NA27away > www.aomin.org/JimmyJoeJSaga.html
[18:04] < NA27away > There....why can't JJJ back up his claims about the early church? IF he is right, of course?
[18:04] <Martyr> I am still waiting for the answer, who formed the canon of the bible??
[18:05] <Martyr> maybe it did just drop from heaven, LOL
[18:05] < NA27away > Artifacts of inspiration are formed in the process of inspiration, Martyr. If you have taken any time to seriously interact with the subject, you'd know that.
[18:06] <Martyr> lol is that right
[18:06] *** Alfonso has left IRC
[18:06] < NA27away > Yes, it is.
[18:07] <Martyr> but who wrote it down on paper, and desided what books would be in the bible??
[18:07] <Martyr> do have names for me?
[18:07] < NA27away > You have an erroneous view of the very nature of the canon itself, Marty.
[18:07] < NA27away > Martyr.
[18:08] <Martyr> you have no idea what my views are about the canon
[18:08] < NA27away > Your question contains the "poison pill." It makes the canon an object of revelation that must, by nature, be extra-scriptural. Hence the ease with which various religions use the argument that then offer some kind of extra-biblical authority.
[18:08] < NA27away > The canon is NOT the 28th book of the NT, nor is it a DIRECT object of revelation. It is an *artifact* of revelation, something that necessarily comes into existence due to another activity.
[18:09] <Martyr> no, just wanted to know who put the bible on paper, who translated it, and who put the canon together
[18:09] < NA27away > And as to your views, I assume they are Romanesque, but you are quite correct: there are many views within Rome.
[18:09] <Martyr> someone had to
[18:09] < NA27away > You continue to assume a canon I reject, Martyr. :-)
[18:09] < NA27away > You will not find your view to line up well with history, but that has never stopped folks before.
[18:10] <Martyr> LOL
[18:10] < NA27away > Did Melito of Sardis hold your view of the canon, Martyr?
[18:10] < NA27away > How about Gregory the Great? Athanasius? Jerome?
[18:11] <Martyr> first of all, do you know what my views are on the canon?
[18:11] < NA27away > Nope. Last we talked you were a Roman Catholic, hence, that normally indicates *something.*
[18:12] <Martyr> so what are your veiws on the canon, what church do you belong to?
[18:12] < NA27away > I'm not a Roman Catholic. So, can you answer the above questions, Martyr?
[18:12] < NA27away > Did Melito of Sardis hold your view of the canon, Martyr?
[18:12] < NA27away > How about Gregory the Great? Athanasius? Jerome?
[18:13] <Martyr> I am not sure, I would have to do a study on that.
[18:14] < NA27away > Fair enough.
[18:14] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 why should that matter? You know very well the bible was chosen by church councils, unless you are claiming that the bible dropped from heaven as is
[18:14] < NA27away > JJJ: As has been explained to you, and as was noted above, your entire premise is faulty: further, if it is as you say, then you should not be so silent in producing the statements of those councils claiming to have exercised such authority.
[18:15] <JimmyJoeJ> Was just checking I had the log on this, want to make sure you can't do the editing without my having the log to show it
[18:15] < NA27away > You may well be ignorant of this, but the first council audacious enough to make that kind of claim was Trent. The ancient councils were not nearly so....arrogant.
[18:15] <Martyr> JJJ, do you know what councils he is talking about
[18:15] < NA27away > I log everything. :-)
[18:15] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 how about the papal lists of Pope Damasus as to what was canonical scripture?
[18:16] < NA27away > Beyond this, given what you said above, Trent is the first council you should care about, because it provided the first DOGMATIC definition of the canon for Roman Catholics, correct?
[18:16] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 so how did we get the canon, in your view?
[18:16] <JimmyJoeJ> NA27 so how did we get the canon, in your view?
[18:16] < NA27away > Historians recognize that list is fallacious and is actually derived from Gelasius; further, you have ignored Gregory's rejection of the Apocrypha so far too....do you invest it with any weight?
[18:16] <Martyr> I think you just answer his question NA
[18:17] < NA27away > You have three pages in my book that explain it, JJJ. If you can't understand it there, re-typing it here won't help you either.
[18:17] <JimmyJoeJ> MARTYR NA is just trying to evade early councils that set the canon. Apparently he doesn't know where the canon of HIS bible came from
[18:17] < NA27away > Anyway, class awaits. Exegesis of the Johannine Epistolary Literature....and the syntax of participles (the crowning glory of Greek syntax). You have fun.
[18:18] < NA27away > And JJJ....I'll keep repeating that question as long as you beat the same drum. :-)
[18:18] <JimmyJoeJ> And keep avoiding answering any question!
[18:19] <Martyr> well I think that is what he does best from what I understand
[18:20] <Martyr> it does not seem that he knows his history very well
[18:20] *** Parts: Martyr (~pirch@HSE-Hamilton-ppp3514533.sympatico.ca)
[18:24] <JimmyJoeJ> See you all later
[18:24] *** Quits: JimmyJoeJ (KMcAll@AC8BF497.ipt.aol.com ) (Leaving )