|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 17:31:30 GMT -5
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 26, 2004 17:31:30 GMT -5
Well, worthily, first I would have to say that I would certainly hesitate to use a book considered non-canonical by the church (that the book of Enoch was quoted by Jude---soulfyre. Well, i appreciate on you filling me in on what is "canonical" although within that term relies on man's final judgement based on unecessary fear against scripture. *It should be noted that in the original Authorized 1611 King James Version the Apocrypha was included. *Matthew's Bible (1537 A.D.) and Taverner's Bible (1539 A.D.) place the Apocrypha between the Testaments. *The Authorized, King James Version (1611), like the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 A.D.) before it, places them in an appendix. 24 That the Apocrypha is included in the King James Version, etc., and is generally included in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox versions of the Bible does not mean that the church has considered them "canonical" (i.e. the "rule to faith and practice"). The "canonical" scriptures were considered "inspired" (God-breathed). This was not true of the non-canonical, apocryphal books, as I believe you will find if you consult with both Roman Catholic and Orthodox scholars. Certainly, although they may convey high-minded and moral themes, their authorship is in dispute, and they are not considered "authoritative". Note my emphasis. The contemporary "spurious" documents that "feigned inspiration" included the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works. The Old Testament Apocrypha has long been included in the Bible because it does record some events (although not with a high degree of accuracy) and is considered by the church to be generally instructive, but neither "canonical" nor "authoritative." I appreciate your note of the historical attempt by those antagonistic to the Scriptures to destroy them, but you are begging the question. No one doubts that unholy men have attempted to stifle the word of God. But the issue at hand is whether the church (or even the Orthodox Jews) consider the Old Testament Apocrypha to be "theopneustos", or "God-breathed". I believe that you will find that they do not. They are not considered "canonical", i.e. the "rule of faith and practice", for a variety of reasons--spurious or doubtful authorship, doctrine contrary to the accepted canon, etc. That you may in fact have a differing opinion lays upon your shoulders the burden of proof. In context, this scripture is referring to the the Law as delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai and re-read, with blessings and cursings, to the Israelites prior to Moses remaining, while the Israelites prepared to enter the land of promise. It certainly has nothing to do with the Old Testament Apocrypha, which hadn't been written at the time. I'm not sure what you mean, here. I don't dispute basic lexical work you did with the Hebrew generic word for God in the Pentateuch. Again, I am at a loss as to your point. I certainly don't deem John 1:1-2 as incongruent with Genesis 1:1 (in either English or the original languages). But there is a reason to be precise as to the intent of the author (Divine and human) in the passage, as it is determinative of meaning. Genesis 1:1 mentions the Spirit of God, but not the Son of God (even though the progressive nature of revelation and the plural form "elohim", although a plural of majesty or intensity, certainly allows for a plurality within the Godhead). And John 1:1-2 mentions God (when used in contradistinction to the Son, or in this case, the Word of God, it is generally taken to mean "God, the Father") and the Word of God, who was with God, and who was (and is) God. The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, is not mentioned. Just as the failure of Genesis 1:1 to mention the Son of God does not deny his pre-existence, the failure of John 1:1-2 to mention the Holy Spirit does not deny his existence. In either case, it would be an argument from silence.
I do not express discomfort with the word "root" itself. It is amply attested in the Holy Scripture. I do become concerned when its use appears to reflect a Gnostic error, or the imposition of a Platonic duality on the Biblica doctrines of theology proper (the nature of God).
I'm not sure where you got this quote concerning the "evangelical" position concerning "deuterocanonical" books. It has never been a requirement that Jesus Christ quote from an Old Testament book for it to be considered "canonical". While this could certainly be adduced as evidence that a book is "canonical", the contrapositive of this does not assume that a book is not canonical. If it has been raining, we may adduce that the ground will be wet. But if it has not been raining, we cannot immediately adduce that the ground will be dry. Protestant evangelicals do not, by-in-large, include the Apocryphal books to avoid confusion. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox faith consider the Apocryphal books "canonical".
Thank you, "worthily"...
Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 18:30:50 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 26, 2004 18:30:50 GMT -5
That the Apocrypha is included in the King James Version, etc., and is generally included in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox versions of the Bible does not mean that the church has considered them "canonical" (i.e. the "rule to faith and practice"). The "canonical" scriptures were considered "inspired" (God-breathed). This was not true of the non-canonical, apocryphal books, as I believe you will find if you consult with both Roman Catholic and Orthodox scholars. Certainly, although they may convey high-minded and moral themes, their authorship is in dispute, and they are not considered "authoritative". Note my emphasis. The contemporary "spurious" documents that "feigned inspiration" included the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works. The Old Testament Apocrypha has long been included in the Bible because it does record some events (although not with a high degree of accuracy) and is considered by the church to be generally instructive, but neither "canonical" nor "authoritative." I appreciate your note of the historical attempt by those antagonistic to the Scriptures to destroy them, but you are begging the question. No one doubts that unholy men have attempted to stifle the word of God. But the issue at hand is whether the church (or even the Orthodox Jews) consider the Old Testament Apocrypha to be "theopneustos", or "God-breathed". I believe that you will find that they do not. They are not considered "canonical", i.e. the "rule of faith and practice", for a variety of reasons--spurious or doubtful authorship, doctrine contrary to the accepted canon, etc. That you may in fact have a differing opinion lays upon your shoulders the burden of proof. In context, this scripture is referring to the the Law as delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai and re-read, with blessings and cursings, to the Israelites prior to Moses remaining, while the Israelites prepared to enter the land of promise. It certainly has nothing to do with the Old Testament Apocrypha, which hadn't been written at the time. I'm not sure what you mean, here. I don't dispute basic lexical work you did with the Hebrew generic word for God in the Pentateuch. Again, I am at a loss as to your point. I certainly don't deem John 1:1-2 as incongruent with Genesis 1:1 (in either English or the original languages). But there is a reason to be precise as to the intent of the author (Divine and human) in the passage, as it is determinative of meaning. Genesis 1:1 mentions the Spirit of God, but not the Son of God (even though the progressive nature of revelation and the plural form "elohim", although a plural of majesty or intensity, certainly allows for a plurality within the Godhead). And John 1:1-2 mentions God (when used in contradistinction to the Son, or in this case, the Word of God, it is generally taken to mean "God, the Father") and the Word of God, who was with God, and who was (and is) God. The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, is not mentioned. Just as the failure of Genesis 1:1 to mention the Son of God does not deny his pre-existence, the failure of John 1:1-2 to mention the Holy Spirit does not deny his existence. In either case, it would be an argument from silence.
I do not express discomfort with the word "root" itself. It is amply attested in the Holy Scripture. I do become concerned when its use appears to reflect a Gnostic error, or the imposition of a Platonic duality on the Biblica doctrines of theology proper (the nature of God).
I'm not sure where you got this quote concerning the "evangelical" position concerning "deuterocanonical" books. It has never been a requirement that Jesus Christ quote from an Old Testament book for it to be considered "canonical". While this could certainly be adduced as evidence that a book is "canonical", the contrapositive of this does not assume that a book is not canonical. If it has been raining, we may adduce that the ground will be wet. But if it has not been raining, we cannot immediately adduce that the ground will be dry. Protestant evangelicals do not, by-in-large, include the Apocryphal books to avoid confusion. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox faith consider the Apocryphal books "canonical".
Thank you, "worthily"...
Matthew (soulfyre) Using the term "canonical" as you have so eloquently included in response to my initial response, fails to convince me to be "hesitant". i appreciate your attempts to extend to me the model of scripture to your standards but that also begs to question whether or not Enoch is part of the biblical branch and by the evidence presented, you fail to convince me to believe otherwise. By whose authority are you riding on to take away one of the former biblical branches? Who put you in position to take the book of Enoch away? If you wish to be hesitant then take it upon yourself to be hesitant but i will not share in your hesitancy. Bless you, "Mathew", with assurance in God and our Lord Jesus Christ
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 21:40:12 GMT -5
Post by melinky on Dec 26, 2004 21:40:12 GMT -5
I will admit that I know very little about the Apochryphal books, the small amount that I have read were wonderful accountings of history. Someone along the line made the comment that one of the reasons the Apochrypha wasn't considered canonical is that the books really talk about God. They are wonderful stories with valuable lessons but no real "meat and potatoes". Is there any truth to a statement like this? I don't mean any disrespct, I'm asking because I have very little first-hand knowledge of these books.
Melinda
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 1:24:47 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 27, 2004 1:24:47 GMT -5
I love this statement. I have heard that the Father elects, but I don't think I've heard the rest. I think this is a very good way to explain the Trinity, especially with the following to tie it together: I think these two statements are a good way to explain the Trinity to new or non-believers. Ron, I think I understand what you mean. I find that I have moments of clarity that are swift and, unfortunately, at times fleeting. The Trinity is a concept that I understand, but have always had a hard time explaining. It's as if words don't do justice to the nature of God. Thank you guys for sharing! You have helped my own understanding of this topic immensely. Yours in Christ, Melinda Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him 1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1Co 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. May God bless as we ask of the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ for the spirit of wisdom
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 1:38:42 GMT -5
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 27, 2004 1:38:42 GMT -5
I am sorry that I have been unable, not to convince you of my rectitude, since it is not my personal standard of canonicity of which I speak, but to convince you of the reason why the church over history (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) has rejected the Apocrypha as canonical. That it is included in the printing of any Bible does not speak to the authority with which the church views the apocryphal writings. The books of Enoch (there were more than one) were pseudepigraphical (the authorship was not as claimed; it was certainly not Enoch, and was probably not written until the post-Exilic period, since it is not part of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia). This alone would have caused their authority to be questioned. They are not even considered authoritative within Judaism. It was also the consensus of the early church that the Holy Scriptures taught a trinitarian, not a dualistic, understanding of God (although it was not formally called "trinity" until the Council of Nice, called by Constantine). While this alone does not prove the doctrine of the trinity, the support of those closer to the historical events and the development of the canon is not to be taken lightly either. I believe, even as the historical church, that the original languages (Hebrew and Greek), and the overall teaching concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit support this conclusion. I, too, believe that the Holy Scripture is of no "private interpretation." The scriptures that you list certainly support that both Jesus (as the Son of God) and the Father are consubstantial and personally distinct members of the Godhead. To list them again does not support your position that God exists as a duality rather than a trinity. I have already discussed scripture that would indicated that the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, is also considered God and is the third personally distinct member of the Godhead. More scriptural support could be adduced, but I will not repeat it again here. I do not, however, wish to continue whipping a dead horse. Unless you can show evidence that the Apocrypha is, or has ever been, considered canonical by Christendom, or you can demonstrate from scripture that God is only a duality, or that the triune nature of God is denied by specific scripture in what are considered the authoritative, canonical books of the Old or New Testaments, then I shall simply say that we must agree to disagree, for the scriptures look askance on fruitless wrangling. God bless and keep you, Matthew (souflyre)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 3:19:18 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 27, 2004 3:19:18 GMT -5
i agree towards ending this tiresome debate to which neither of us seem to disprove each other, i made an error in presuming to present the truth into this matter hoping to share in the knowledge thats been blessed to all of us but i didnt realize my attempts would be futile. i respect your position for it is not my intention to cause grief and my hope is in the same hope as any other person alive, the hope in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. i would like to leave something towards this debate by restating the excerpt cited earlier in hopes that the integrity of all scripture shouldnt be debated at all:
King James position stated and recorded:
"As for the Scriptures, no man doubteth, I will believe them; but even for the Apocrypha, I hold them in the same account that the ancients did: they are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our Churches; I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men:" ["The Church History Of Britain" by Thomas Fuller, Oxford, M.DCCC.XLV].
God bless you and keep you in His awsome mercy and blessed be to Jesus Christ who intercedes for us daily.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 3:42:43 GMT -5
Post by rgrove on Dec 27, 2004 3:42:43 GMT -5
I will admit that I know very little about the Apochryphal books, the small amount that I have read were wonderful accountings of history. Someone along the line made the comment that one of the reasons the Apochrypha wasn't considered canonical is that the books really talk about God. They are wonderful stories with valuable lessons but no real "meat and potatoes". Is there any truth to a statement like this? I don't mean any disrespct, I'm asking because I have very little first-hand knowledge of these books. Melinda This is a bit of a separate thread. I recommend looking at the thread "Council of Trent" in the church history section. soulfyremac.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=1104134331Many protestants, such as myself, encourage thre reading of the apocrypha. It contains a lot of interesting data, but there are many historically verifiable innacuracies. They are well documented if you decide to look for them. They were only "canonized" at the Council of Trent. Not before. The key thing regarding the Reformation is that the Council of Trent declared that if you do not consider the apocrypha part of the Bible and infallible in all it teaches you fall under the anathema of Rome with the following statement: "They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 3:50:25 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 27, 2004 3:50:25 GMT -5
thanks rgrove for the input and God bless.
i do have a question: why do they call it Canticle of Canticles? isnt it actually part of--- song of Solomon?
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 8:12:41 GMT -5
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 27, 2004 8:12:41 GMT -5
This is a bit of a separate thread. I recommend looking at the thread "Council of Trent" in the church history section. soulfyremac.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=1104134331Many protestants, such as myself, encourage the reading of the apocrypha. It contains a lot of interesting data, but there are many historically verifiable innacuracies. They are well documented if you decide to look for them. They were only "canonized" at the Council of Trent. Not before. Thank you for the information. The information I had seemed to indicate that the Roman Catholic church did not consider the Apocrypha fully canonical (i.e. a "rule of faith and practice") as it did the other 66 books. The Orthodox actually contain more apocryphal material, but make a definition regarding the comparitive authority between appocryphal, and non-appocryphal, books. Then I must apologize, worthily and others. If the Roman Catholic church deemed the Old Testament Apocrypha a "rule of faith and practice" with no differentiation from the authority of the other 66 books, I find myself in disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church But I cannot then say that all branches of the church reject them as fully authoritative or "inspired". I shall sudy this further, and perhaps introduce an article on canonization. Having read the list in the determination by the Council of Trent carefully, however, I did not note that the book of Enoch was mentioned. Did I miss it? The only books I noted were Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Macabbees. Thank you for your input, rgrove. God bless you and yours, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 8:57:15 GMT -5
Post by melinky on Dec 27, 2004 8:57:15 GMT -5
Okay, now I'm really confused. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. I always thought that the Catholic church accepted the Apochrypha as canonical and that was why those books are included in the Catholic Bible. Did I read correctly that to not accept them as canonical is to, more or less, side with Rome? [quote author=worthily link=board=theoproper&thread=1104053342&start=20#King James position stated and recorded: "As for the Scriptures, no man doubteth, I will believe them; but even for the Apocrypha, I hold them in the same account that the ancients did: they are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our Churches; I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men:" ["The Church History Of Britain" by Thomas Fuller, Oxford, M.DCCC.XLV]. [/quote] Also, I don't understand why King James and the KJV would, or could, be considered the final authority on the Bible. Wouldn't the original texts be considered more accurate? I guess what I'm asking is, what makes King James so special? Melinda
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 11:11:32 GMT -5
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 27, 2004 11:11:32 GMT -5
Okay, now I'm really confused. I always thought that the Catholic church accepted the Apochrypha as canonical and that was why those books are included in the Catholic Bible. Did I read correctly that to not accept them as canonical is to, more or less, side with Rome? There actually is some confusion concerning the use of the word "Apocrypha", which the Roman Catholics deem we use incorrectly to refer to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, in which were included (in addition to the Protestant 66 books) Tobit (or Tobias), Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) and Baruch (including some additions to Esther and Daniel). It is these that the Council of Trent determined to be canonical, as rgrove pointed out. The Roman Catholic Church does not refer to these books, except by popular concession, as the "apocrypha", preferring the term "deuterocanonical." Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia: As you may surmise, while the Roman Catholic church accepts the deuterocanonical works (what we conventionally refer to as the Apocrypha when it appears in the Bible), they do not consider generally authoritative the books that would more technically be referred to as "apocryphal" (among which are the Books of Enoch). The link Apocrypha, the the Catholic Encyclopedia, is most enlightening, and will, I believe, say better than I why they accept the deuterocanonical books (that we refer to incorrectly but popularly as the Apocrypha), but not the "apocryphal" writings. This is certainly what I believe (the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament were included in the LXX, the Greek translation that was developed in the intertestamental period, but not in the Biblia Hebraica). The various apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings of the Old and New Testaments, aside from the deuterocanon, do not appear in the Tanakh, or the canons of the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox churches. God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 12:36:32 GMT -5
Post by rgrove on Dec 27, 2004 12:36:32 GMT -5
Obviously I concur with Soulfyre's statements on this issue. I would again take the opportunity to ask everyone to actually read them. Read the deuterocanonical books that Rome canonized after the Reformation and read the other Apocryphal books (the ones both Rome and Protestantism do not include). It won't take long and anyone that takes the time to do so will understand the issues quite a bit better. I also HIGHLY recommend reading the works that are extant from the first and second centuries. I think I'll post another thread on these important extant works actually. In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 13:34:30 GMT -5
Post by Kenny on Dec 27, 2004 13:34:30 GMT -5
Okay, now I'm really confused. Melinda You think you're confused? lol What does canonical mean!?!
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 14:36:48 GMT -5
Post by rgrove on Dec 27, 2004 14:36:48 GMT -5
You think you're confused? lol What does canonical mean!?! This topic is most certainly a thread in and of itself. It's a complicated word with many meanings. In Catholicism it's quite literally law. Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition of Canon Law for instance. www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htmIn the usage one uses regarding scripture and the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism it is centrally focused on what books constitute the Bible. What is the "Canon of Scripture". As the debate above has shown Rome considers the deuterocanonical books to be part of the Canon of Scripture whereas protestants do not. Soulfyre made several of the arguments as to why it isn't. If you would like to hear more I might recommend the debates James White of Alpha and Omega ministries has had with Catholic Apologists. You will see both sides presented very clearly. aomin.org/mp3/shop.html?shop=list3By far the best debate on the apocrypha is with Gary Michuta. I think you'll see the best Catholic apologetic I've seen to date in his arguments. Of course I still think Dr. White won the debate, but I'm hardly unbiased. While there, I *HIGHLY* recommend the debates with Father Mitchell Pacwa. He is a very able Jesuit Catholic scholar. Well known and highly respected in Catholic circles. He articulates the positions of the Catholic church very clearly and Dr White and him conduct themselves very well toward one another. Dr White, while firm in his positions, has great affection for Father Pacwa personally and Father Pacwa also in one of the bullets recommending Dr. White's work on the Trinity. In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 27, 2004 16:59:46 GMT -5
Post by melinky on Dec 27, 2004 16:59:46 GMT -5
You think you're confused? lol What does canonical mean!?! FYI all, we now have a Definitions of Terminology board that will deal with explanations of some of the terms some might not be familiar with. Melinda
|
|