From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Graeme's 6 points - was The Apocrypha
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 06:18:25 GMT

On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 01:43:10 GMT, g, (Graeme)
wrote:

>You certainly must lead a very sheltered life amidts the cloisters of
>the Anglican church. ... You have to be joking. Why not
>givbe an answer instead of being deliberately silly. 

Graeme, I wonder if it is possible for you to write a post
without this insulting and patronising language?

>Most Protetsant
>churches do not include the Apocrypha. And, by the way, you have never
>even made any reply to my post about the references in the Apocrypha
>which directly contradict the canon of scripture. 

I was not aware that I was required to respond to every one of
your posts.

Personally I follow the teaching of Jerome and the 39 articles in
this matter. The books known as the Apocrypha are better known as
the deutero-canonical books. They form a secondary canon- useful
to read, but not of the same level of importance as the canonical
OT and NT.

As you know, I can find many contradictions within and between
the canonical books, so your efforts to find contradictions
between the apocrypha and the canon neither surprise nor concern
me.

>
>>- namely the OT without the Apocrypha, and the NT without the
>>long ending to Mark and without John 8:1-11. My Bible includes
>>all of these texts, 
>
>Don't be a silly fellow Nigel, you know very well that is not true.

Actually, my Bible does include all of these texts. 

>Telling fibs seems to be a bad habit of yours. My Bible includes the
>references in Mark and John also, but I have given you good reasons
>why capable scholars have indicated that they are not a part of the
>text. As for the Apocrypha, well it follows, I must admit, that groups
>who have fallen into apostasy and ignorance of the Word of God will
>inevitably fall for the admission of false and spurious works into
>their religious activities.
>
>>as do the Bibles of most Christians.
>
>Ther wou.d be more Bibles without the Apocrypha than with it, as I am
>sure you well know. Have you visited a Christian bookshop lately? I
>mean one that is not Anglican or Roman Catholic.

Do you think that Anglicans and Roman Catholics are not
Christians, Graeme. The Orthodox churches include the apocryphal
books and even more in their canon. The Roman Catholic church
includes them in the canon. Anglicans and many protestants
(including a number who have said so in the course of this
discussion) own Bibles that include the Apocrypha, and read them
without necessarily using them to develop doctrine. It follows
that most Christians use the Apocrypha, unless you want to
indulge in some sort of circular logic like 'if they use the
apocrypha they are not really Christians, therefore most
Christians do not use the apocrypha'.

I stand by my statement. Most Christians use Bibles that include
the Apocrypha.

>>>2) The writers of the Bible received their inspiration from God the
>>>Holy Spirit, not from the fictitious writings of man.
>
>>The writers of the Bible wrote about what they saw, experienced
>>and understood of God. 
>
>That is not what the Bible says, therefore you are in contradiction to
>what the Bible says. You really should stop reading rationalistic
>books about the Bible and read the Bible itself, it is far more
>reliable.

The author of 1 John was writing about what he had seen and
heard.
(1 John 1:1-4 NRSV)  We declare to you what was from the
beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes,
what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the
word of life-- this life was revealed, and we have seen it and
testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with
the Father and was revealed to us--  we declare to you what we
have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us;
and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son
Jesus Christ.  We are writing these things so that our joy may be
complete.

The author of Luke was writing about what others had seen and
heard, after researching and verifying their reports.
(Luke 1:1-4 NRSV)  Since many have undertaken to set down an
orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after
investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write
an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that
you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have
been instructed.


The author of John was an eyewitness who was deliberately
selective in what he reported.
(John 20:30-31 NRSV)  Now Jesus did many other signs in the
presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus
is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you
may have life in his name.
(John 21:23-25 NRSV)  So the rumor spread in the community that
this disciple [the beloved disciple] would not die. Yet Jesus did
not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that
he remain until I come, what is that to you?"  This is the
disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them,
and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many
other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written
down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books
that would be written.

I stand by my statement.
The writers of the Bible wrote about what they saw, experienced
and understood of God. 


>
>>They were fallible human beings, and
>>continued to be such when they wrote the books and letters which
>>now make up the scriptures.
>
>Under the direction of the Holy Spirit, not according to the
>rationalism of men.

Do you think that they were still fallible human beings whilst
they were writing, or the the Holy Spirit remove their minds,
personalities, histories, ideas and brains?
How do you account for the differences in grammar, syntax, and
vocabulary in the different books? Why is Mark written in such
ungrammatic Greek, Hebrews in such sophisticated Greek, and the
rest of the NT scattered in between? How, when, and by whom was
the long ending of Mark added? Do you  think that the original
autograph of Mark 16 ended at verse 8, or do you think the
original ending has been lost?

>
>>The process by which the Church, over a period of some 4
>>centuries, decided which books to include, and which to exclude
>>from the canon, was also guided by inspiration from the Holy
>>Spirit, but nevertheless undertaken by fallible human beings.
>
>If it was the Holy Spirit's guidance I can accept that. Fallible human
>beings really have no part in it, even in the inspiration of the
>scriptures. Hopefully, one day when you understand the doctrine of
>inspiration you will also understand something of the principle.

Sorry, Graeme but fallible human beings did have a part in it.
That is why there were debates, why it took 4 centuries to arrive
at consensus over the canon, and why there are so many textual
variants. You know these things - you are happy to regard Mark
9-20 and John 8:1-11 as non- canonical additions, yet you say
that fallible human beings had no part in the production of the
Bible! Sorry, but that does not make sense at all.

>
>>>3) How did a fictitious writing see the invisible angelic conflict in
>>>order to be able to report it? (I refer to its alleged inclusion in
>>>the Assumption of Moses).
>
>>The author of the Assumption of Moses is generally considered to
>>have been involved in devotional speculation. According to most
>>Bible authors I have been able to find, it is likely that the
>>author of the letter of Jude, and his readers, were familiar with
>>the story, so it was an appropriate example.
>
>"According to most Bible authors" you have been able to find. How
>quaint. What gives these so-called authors the final word? Like most
>liberal "scholars" it seems they were those who had to find a human
>viewpoint solution to the problem.

Are there any scholars you do not regard as "liberals"? I have
looked in both my own library and an University library, and I
have been unable to find any published author who does not
associate Jude 9 with the Assumption of Moses. You say they are
all wrong, but you have no evidence.

>
>>>4) Why would Jude conclude that a fictitious writing was revelation
>>>from God? If the Bible is correct [1st class condition: and it is!]
>>>then the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Jude, it was not copied
>>>out of fiction.
>
>>The Bible contains many fictitious stories used for the example
>>or the information they convey - the story of the lovers in the
>>Song of Songs, the book of Job, the parables of Jesus, etc.
>>Jude 9 is far from unique in this respect.
>
>You have failed to, make a very obvious distinction here. The Bible
>even includes lies, but that does not mean that the Bible is a lie, it
>merely makes reference to a lie that has been told. Ficititious
>stories may be told also, usually in the form of a parable, in order
>to illustrate a spiritual truth. This does not mean that the Bible
>implies the fiction is true. What you very conventiently ignore, as
>you do with many other points you wish not to admit, is that the
>account in Jude was not a fiction, it was an account of an event which
>actually occurred. This is why Jude mentions it. it also follows that
>he could only have included it in his epistle for inclusion in the
>canon through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Your suggestion that
>he included it because of some fictitious writing is ludicrous. I mean
>even someone whose comprehension is as poor as yours should be able to
>see that. 

Once again, you resort to insult when your argument is weakest.
As you say, fictional stories are told and referred to throughout
the Bible, to illustrate spiritual truth. I suspect that even the
most conservative scholars of the Bible would view Jude 9 as an
example of exactly that. 

>
>>>5) If Jude included it in his epistle on the say so of a fictitious
>>>writing it is not a part of the Word of God. 
>
>>No-one regards the Assumption of Moses as canonical. All
>>Christians, AFAIK, regard the book of Jude as canonical. The
>>ficticious parables of Jesus do not disqualify the canonicity of
>>the Gospels, and Jude's use of the Assumption of Moses does not
>>disqualify the book of Jude.
>
>As above. You are merging two different things here. Learn to
>distinguish the facts. for goodness sake, or you will forever be in a
>state of confusion.

Instead of insulting me, why don't you respond to what I have
said. When Jesus told parables, he did not always say "this is a
parable". Mostly he began "A farmer went to sow some seed..." or
"A king gave a banquet...". His hearers knew that it was an
exemplary story, not an historical account. It sems likely that
Jude's readers would have been familiar with the story in the
Assumption of Moses, and understood it to be an example, and not
an historical account. 

>
>>>6) The only fragment of the Assumption of Moses that has survived
>>>makes no reference to the angelic conflict. All you have to go on
>>>apparently is the comment of one man.
>
>>If you look at my posting on Jude 9, you will see that the
>>consensus of modern Biblical scholars 
>
>That's a laugh. You ought to do some reading on these "modern Biblical
>scholars."  They began in the nineteenth century and they initiated
>one of the greatest attacks on the Bible in the last 2000 years. 

Actually, when I re-read my post I realised that this was a slip.
What I should have said is that there has been a consensus
amongst Biblical scholars since the third century that Jude 9 and
the Assumpion of Moses were related. According to my research
only a small minority of nineteenth century Bible scholars have
suggested otherwise. 

Don't forget, Graeme, 'fundamentalism' and 'literalism' also
began in the nineteenth century.

>
>>seems to be that enough 3rd
>>and 4th century references to the Assumption of Moses and Jude's
>>use thereof have survived for us to be fairly confident that
>>either Jude directly quoted from the Assumption of Moses, or Jude
>>and the author of the Assumption of Moses both drew on the same
>>traditional material for their account of the dispute between
>>Michael and Satan over the body of Moses.
>
>Your assumptions are as weak (and convenient) as the so-called
>assumptions of Moses. You are basing an interpretation of God's Word
>on a tradition. Are you sure you are not a Roman Catholic? They do
>that too.

We all do that. You cite protestant tradition, some people quote
the 39 articles, we all cite the canon of sctripture. These
things are all part of our tradition. By keeping your background
and training a secret, you attempt to create the illusion that
you do not speak out of a tradition, but simply read the Bible
and nothing else. But that is not the case, is it? You stand in a
particular tradition of believing in the verbal inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible. I stand in the tradition of liberal
scholarship and Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology. Most of our
disagreements are over the different assumptions and
preconceptions our traditions dictate.

>
>>I have answered your six points, Graeme. Is there any chance you
>>will come up with some material showing logical support and
>>evidence for your claims about scripture?
>
>You haven't answered them, except for the first one you have
>rationalised them away (which is your habit) without really dealing
>with them at all.
>
>Oh well, one up for Graeme at this point.

Give yourself as many points as you like. No-one else will.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell