Free Republic

You posted idiocy, IMHO. This is a thread about drugs. You posted about booze. Do you see them as the same?

...

Of course alcohol is a drug.

It seems then that a black market in a drug is an entirely apt comparison, after all.

However, when any reasonable person says to another reasonable person, “I want to go take some drugs,” what would immediately come to mind? A shot of vodka? I think not.

You're right, I don't think of alcohol, or nicotine, or caffeine, even though I know these things are drugs. I also don't think of marijuana. Marijuana, like the legal drugs, is common enough (and, I'll say it, mainstream enough) that we ordinarily call it by its own name, as distinct from other less popular activities. That's why we call marijuana and the legal drugs "soft", as opposed to other drugs which are called "hard". If we're going to follow common usage, why not that distinction? But we should remember that at least some hard drugs are only hard because they're chemically purified -- if we permitted the coca leaf and coca tea, it would be no different from permitting coffee beans and coffee.

So you have what she was trained to do, and I have what she did do.

You’re right, of course.

Picture a pear with a mouth saying “lol wut”.

YOu think she just drew down and opened up?

Sure looks that way.

I have been arguing against representative government here on FR for the better part of a decade now

I give about a 20% chance you'll see the end of representative government real soon now.

I have a sense of foreboding that this election is the other end of 1800.

< Yawn >

Perhaps the most cogent thing you've said.

He went to his death shooting and shouting the Masonic distress call,

Regardless, previously he and his followers were chased from place to place, and they even had for all intensive purposes the whole state of Missouri declare war on them.

You mean "all intents and purposes".

By your logic why would JS and the rest of them go through all that based on lies?

Just Smith -- "and the rest" is your lack of comprehension. One bold impostor makes sense. Smith was the only one who ever saw the plates; at least one of the "witnesses" later admitted they saw it with "spiritual" rather than literal eyes and his translation procedure involved reciting letters he saw in a peepstone rather than directly handling the plates in front of his collaborator.

You need everyone who would have had access to the tomb including the Pharisees to be in on it.

No where does it say they were persecuted for their beliefs, they were more in trouble for their political acts, primarily the refusal to pay homage to the emperor and their tendency to incite the public to rebel against civil authority.

Every single claim in that paragraph is wrong.

In Acts 4:17-21 the Sanhedrin dragged them in and threatened them unless they stopped preaching and doing miracles in the name of Jesus. Then in Acts 5:17-18 they were arrested, and in 5:40 they were beaten and again told to stop preaching. In Acts 7 they killed Stephen for describing a vision of Jesus at the right hand of God. In Acts 8 Saul persecutes all the Christian he can get to precisely because of their beliefs.

I assume by "pay homage to the emperor" you mean the pinch of incense. This is badly anachronistic; the mandatory pinch of incense was instituted several centuries later as a specifically anti-Christian measure. Christians did refuse to participate in the then-existing civil rites, but Christianity was at that time considered a sect of Judaism and Jews were exempt.

Finally, the Apostles told people not to rebel against civil authority, most famously in Romans 13.

You are not entitled to your own facts.

They most likely wouldn't have killed themselves

Now run with that thought a little.

Here's a list of some of The Miracles of Prophet Mohammad as his companions witnessed

All citing hadiths. Hadiths are oral history collected well after the original generation died. (And no, the New Testament isn't.)

But even it is is true that they did die in the way reported it's still a bad argument, people have died all throughout history for things that were not true and/or lies.

On the contrary, your counterargument is so stupid it's surprising to see it presented seriously. You should have given a moment's thought to your examples; you didn't, because you haven't even considered the original argument. Here's a clue: it's not simply "they died for it, so it's true". For what it is, you could try reading. Or just go on making a fool of yourself; your choice, really.

Joseph Smith never recanted even when faced with death by an angry mob.

He went to his death shooting and shouting the Masonic distress call, and the crowd never offered the chance to recant anyway.

Why did Jim Jones kill himself, when he knew that all he had been preaching was false?

And how do you know he did? More relevantly, if every single follower had known he was preaching falsehood, how do you suppose it would have went?

The Waco Branch Davidians died believing David Koresh to be the next Messiah

And?

What about the early Muslims who volunteered to die in Muhammad's cause (i.e. The Battle of the Trench), according to your logic they wouldn't have if they knew that Muhammad had not been visited by Gabriel

Now explain how they would have known.

No, don't. Just throw up some more non sequiturs.

I don't think it's that simple: they're not called the Gnostic Gospels, for nothing;

Well, they were written by Gnostics and they purport to recount the words and/or actions of Jesus, so yes, they would be called "Gnostic Gospels". Not sure what you think that has to do with my post.

I reiterate: that is Tradition.

At first I thought you mistakenly assumed I was thinking of Cardinal Newman when I mentioned "history", but apparently now you insist on misreading any knowledge of the past as Tradition with a capital T. The only reply I can think of is to ask you to stop being silly.

Excuse me if this seems nit-picky, but we have to agree, one way or another, on what we mean by the word.

Either I'm not putting the question right or you're trying to dodge it. Ignore the word "Canon". Does the Church add anything or recognize what already exists?

The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a process stimulated by disputes, both within and without the Church, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.

The last line is inaccurate. The first ecumenical (or "ecumenical" for the EOs out there) council that said anything about the Canon was Trent. The only counciliar definitions before that were local. So the final form of the New Testament Canon preceeds the "dogmatic definition" by over a thousand years.

Which means (and this must seem an irony for someone in your position) that Christians throughout most of history have used a Canon with exactly the same basis Protestants still believe ours has.

I've always been mystified why anyone would take [the Lerins quote] seriously. If that's how you define orthodoxy, then by the surviving history (in the sense I intended that phrase in the first place) there's no orthodoxy at all.

I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by that. Orthodoxy is the truth that has been handed down to us. It is still being handed on: by word of mouth, in writing, in the example and lives of the Saints.

It would probably help if you read what Vincent said. I had assumed you knew, since you not only introduced him to the discussion but quoted him in Latin and English.

Oh, it was given serious consideration by the Gnostics, all right.

Not really. By all appearances even the Gnostics knew the difference between Thomas and, say, John. It's just modern academics who don't. The only ones who ever disputed the place of the four Gospels were Marcionites, and they took away, not added.

It wasn't accepted in the "surviving history" of the Church. "The surviving history of the Church which was handed down to us" is, in fact, the definition of Tradition.

Please read more carefully. That phrase has nothing to do with "Tradition". It has to do with history in the ordinary sense, i.e., the same way we know about Caesar conquering Gaul.

Let me try to understand your question correctly: are you asking whether something, anything, could become canonical simply by being used in the Liturgy?

No. It's the same question I asked you already: do texts start as Canonical? Asking the same question from the other direction, was John a part of the Canon as soon as it was put down on papyrus, or did it need to be added later?

In the words of an ecclesiastical writer in Southern Gaul in the fifth century, St. Vincent of Lerins, here's a practical rule for distinguishing heresy from true doctrine: "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." What has been believed everyone, always, and by everyone. How do you detemine that? In your words, "the surviving history." Tradition.

I've heard of that before, and I've always been mystified why anyone would take it seriously. If that's how you define orthodoxy, then by the surviving history (in the sense I intended that phrase in the first place) there's no orthodoxy at all.

But when was it decided that the "Gospel of Thomas," for instance, didn't make the cut? When, where, and by whom?

By the surviving history, it was never given any serious consideration.

Because it was never used Liturgically: Lex orandi, lex credendi. Nor was it referenced as authoritative by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or received as Scripture in Orthodox/Catholic Churches. That's the basis the Ecumenical Councils used, to determine the authenticity of Scriptures: liturgical, patristic, and ecclesial Tradition. The spurious texts were not in the Tradition.

So take the question back a step. When the Church used a book, was it recognizing something that would have been true of the book in any case, or was it giving the book something? Could the Church have used Thomas liturgically, and if it had would Thomas be Canon?

Jesus said that God is spirit. And considering what we know about consciousness, resurrecting that would make the body unnecessary.

So you'll follow some vague "what we know about consciousness" instead of Scripture.

So I ask again: who determined the Canon? And on what basis?

God did, on the basis of which writtings He had inspired.

Could the Church put Thomas in the Canon? Why or why not? If it does, would Thomas gain in authority, or would it always have had this authority?

You didn't answer the question.

Neither did you.

Your question happens to be irrelevant. After the Resurrection, before the Ascension, at the time when Jesus presented Himself to the disciples, He said His body had nailprints, and offered Himself for examination to prove the point. Were there nailprints because nails had been driven into those parts of His body, or because He was putting one over on them?

You didn't answer the question. Probably because you DO believe Jesus deceived the disciples.

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

You are, of course, misrepresenting those passages badly. Paul doesn't say, and Scripture doesn't say, that anything we need to know is outside the Canon and would always be outside the Canon. Remember that when Paul wrote the Gospels weren't written yet, but now they have been written (a rather significant difference).

After the resurrection, Jesus offered His own wounds as proof it was indeed He. What that a deception?

So, we'd rather a person in that situation not compound what she already did by adding murder... and that's hypocrisy, how? Are you saying we're secretly in favor of killing babies, or what, exactly?

In any event there is a reason they're aren't any cameras in the court, it isn't a place for popular opinion or theatrics, it's supposed to be a place of serious discussion and for that you need to be precise in your language. Period.

I've always found that concluding "Period" especially persuasive.

Which was what this kid did egging this guys SUV.

So the kid initiated force against the SUV driver, therefore some other kid should initiate more damaging force against me? Is that the reasoning?

I don't tresspass. Therefore, have nothing to worry about.

Then why the angry reply?

you excused this kids "innocent prank"

Liar.

I hope you suffer the same kind of "prank" some day.

A direct endorsement of the initiation of force.

It followed the exact logical form you used.

When I say you should get the same consequences you favor for others if you initiate force, you say someone should initiate force against me. That's thug's logic.