Friday, August 27, 2010

John Bugay and the German critical scholar Peter Lampe

I have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue with John Bugay over at the Beggars All blog. This ongoing dialogue began when I posted the following comment in THIS THREAD:

Hi GV19,

Longtime no chat! Hope that your month of fasting (Ramadan) is strengthening you spiritually…I concur with most of the following that you posted:

>>John I have found your insights very helpful, and I say this not with any ill intent towards others on this blog; however I find you one more the cultured, enlightened and self restrained people who approach others who have a different world view than your own.>>

Me: Though John is certainly one of the more charitable and self-restrained anti-Roman Catholics I have encountered online, I still cannot help but suspect that his anti-Roman Catholic bias has some negative ramifications on his research and beliefs. For instance, John eagerly endorses the critical German scholar Lampe concerning the status of the Roman church/s during the 1st and 2nd centuries, and then thoroughly recommends Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's The Heresy of Orthodoxy which is at odds with some important conclusions of Lampe. Do not wish to digress here, but it does remind me a bit of James White’s charge/s leveled against Muslim apologists who quote “liberal”, critical Christian scholars in their debates, whilst James allows himself to use “liberal” and critical Islamic scholars.

To make a very long story short, I sincerely hope and pray that a bit more consistency among epologists emerges in the near future—but forgive me if I do not hold my breath…

Grace and peace,

David (LINK)

Reactions to the above post were numerous, and crossed over into other threads that John subsequently created. Unfortunately, Beggars All has been experiencing some posting anomalies—i.e. some posts in the comboxes are vanishing shortly after being posted. This, and divergent issues not related to the original topic, have made coherent dialogue between John and myself nearly impossible; as such, I have moved our discussion to Articuli Fidei.

After my initial post, Matthew D. Schultz (another BA team member) responded (his post is the one immediately following my post linked to above). I attempted to respond to Matthew, however, my subsequent comment repeatedly vanished minutes after my submitting the post (I made 6 attempts). Here is my response, which I was able to copy before it disappeared:

David Waltz said...

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for responding to my musings; you posted:

>>David Waltz writes:For instance, John eagerly endorses the critical German scholar Lampe concerning the status of the Roman church/s during the 1st and 2nd centuries, and then thoroughly recommends Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's The Heresy of Orthodoxy which is at odds with some important conclusions of Lampe.How does it follow that this is inconsistent? Since you yourself have given the qualification of "some," it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that John can't recommend both Lampe and Kostenberger/Kruger. Unless they were completely contradictory (in both methods and conclusions), it seems perfectly reasonable to draw on and recommend those aspects of these works he finds helpful and accurate.>>

Me: Perhaps you do not understand the key issues between critical scholarship and conservative scholarship (maybe you do, but choose to sweep these issues under the carpet for now). Lampe's critical methodology permeates his scholarly work--the inconsistency of John lies in his willingness to accept Lampe's critical methodology in a very narrow venue—i.e. wherein he undermines certain Roman Catholic claims—but then rejects Lampe's critical methodology when it works against his worldview.

>>Do not wish to digress here,Then I have to ask why you brought up this charge of inconsistency at all. Are you hoping that it will stand uncontested if you couch it in noncommittal language?>>

Me: No.

>>Charges of intellectual inconsistency are serious. It would be best to either make them with an intent to discuss them or not to make them at all.>>

Me: I am willing to do so.

>>but it does remind me a bit of James White’s charge/s leveled against Muslim apologists who quote “liberal”, critical Christian scholars in their debates, whilst James allows himself to use “liberal” and critical Islamic scholars.That comparison assumes White's methods are inconsistent.>>

Me: Not an assumption (IMO).

>>However, it's appropriate (even obligatory) to argue that the conclusions of liberal scholars (quoted by Muslims against traditional Christianity) are faulty while, at the same time, demonstrating the merits of liberal scholarship with respect to critiques of Islam.>>Me: This is the 'problem' Matthew: you, and so many others, are willing to use a double-edged sword (i.e. liberal, critical scholarship) against your opponents whilst crying 'foul' when they attempt to do the same!!!>>Since White deals with liberal scholarship on a regular basis, I don't see how this approach is inconsistent on any level.>>

Me: Sigh...

>>And you are comparing the use of liberal and conservative scholarship across two different religious traditions. Not only do you require a symmetrical relationship where none should exist, but your comparison of John Bugay's methods with White's is disanalogous.>>Me: I disagree Matthew; the fact that John, James White, and many other epologists are willing to solicit liberal, critical scholarship ONLY when it furthers their agenda/s, whilst denying the same method to their opponents, is an all too common practice—that you do not discern commonality and/or inconsistency here is a bit troubling...

Grace and peace,

David
2:44 PM, August 24, 2010

[Note: I corrected a typo in the orignal post, changing "aggenda/s" to "agenda/s".]

Rather than responding in the combox, John chose to create a NEW THREAD. In the original opening post of this new thread John wrote the following:

David Waltz stopped by last night to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. It's funny, he's always so cheerful with me, who would have guessed that he harbored such doubts?

A bit later in the combox, I responded to the above with:

Hello John,

You wrote:

>>David Waltz stopped by last night to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. It's funny, he's always so cheerful with me, who would have guessed that he harbored such doubts?>>

Me: Not an accurate representation of what I said: I stated that I believe that you (and many other epologists) are inconsistent, NOT dishonest.

Grace and peace,

David

Thankfully, John went back and changed "intellectual dishonesty" to "intellectual inconsistency".

However, upon rereading his opening post, I saw that he has left the following remarks unchanged:

But there is nothing I'm writing, that I am aware of, that is being intellectually dishonest with the materials.

David, I would like for you to show me where you think I might disagree with Lampe, or where you think Kostenberger and Kruger might disagree with him. Perhaps you're willing to tell me just how the work of these individuals is at odds and then we can discuss the specifics of it, and only then you can genuinely begin to charge me with intellectual dishonesty. Or not.

This is a Harvey Cox conclusion that we can agree with. But we also know precisely where we would disagree with him. Such is the nature of the confluence of conservative and critical scholarship. And guess what? No one is being intellectually dishonest here.

For the record, yet once again, I have not charged John (nor the conservatives he cites) with intellectual dishonesty. Hopefully John will go back and change his misrepresentations.

In one of the above quotes, John requested:

David, I would like for you to show me where you think I might disagree with Lampe, or where you think Kostenberger and Kruger might disagree with him.

I responded to John's request, but unfortunately (yet once again) my post vanished from the combox; the following is my initial response to John's request:

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

So much to cover in your opening post; will try to focus on one aspect at a time. First, your brief bio; I sincerely appreciated your candor, and do not in the least doubt your sincerity. However, with that said, I do find it interesting that no anti-Roman Catholic poster has attempted to dissect and analyze your spiritual journey as they have, and continue to do so, with mine. James Swan, David King, and others have been quite critical of my spiritual journey—you and Rhology are ‘allowed’ a number of worldview and/or ecclesiastical changes in your respective journeys without the worry of derogatory comments being cast your way, but I, who have made fewer changes than either you or Rho, must constantly defend my spiritual journey—I cannot help but think that if I too was a thorough going anti-Roman Catholic, such denigration would cease.

Moving on, you posted:

>> But there is nothing I'm writing, that I am aware of, that is being intellectually dishonest with the materials.>>

Me: Once again, I have not said, nor believe, that you are being “intellectually dishonest”. I do believe (as I hope to demonstrate later) that you are at times inconsistent, and that you have misunderstood some the material you have read (e.g. Metzger/HERE – which is certainly not the same thing as intellectual dishonesty).

And importantly, I would like to carry on this dialogue without getting ‘personal’; will attempt to be as objective as possible, and if at anytime I have somehow misrepresented your position and or thoughts, please correct me.

I would much rather like to continue our dialogue face-to-face—I have found internet discussions to be deficient on many levels—but, even though I do not ‘know’ you personally, I sense, like Ken, that you prefer charitable, construction dialogue over polemical/rhetorical ones, hence my willingness to carry on our discussion.

Need to get some lunch; more later, the Lord willing.

Grace and peace,

David

5:27 PM, August 25, 2010

John was able to copy my post before it vanished, and responded to it; the following is my response to John's remarks (which is still in the combox):

Hello again John,

Back for a few more thoughts and reflections on your opening post; you wrote:

>>But there is nothing I'm writing, that I am aware of, that is being intellectually dishonest with the materials. If anything, what I am finding is that there is a flood-tide of scholarship that is coming to "anti-Catholic" conclusions -- including the work of such Catholic writers as Raymond Brown, Eamon Duffy, Robert Eno, Francis Sullivan, Klaus Schatz, and others.>>

Me: I use the term “anti-Catholic” (fyi, James and others prefer that we use the term “anti-Roman Catholic”) to denote those who do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian denomination. Apart from Duffy (whom I have not read), the gentlemen you list above are Roman Catholic, and certainly believe that the denomination is a Christian one. My position on the RCC is similar to that of Dr. Charles Hodge and Tim Enloe.

>>One might go so far as to suggest that David Waltz does not understand what it is that he is reading -- the particular conclusions that make a scholar liberal or conservative, or how they arrive at those conclusions. What might be agreed with or disagreed with, and on what basis.>>

Me: I make no claim to infallibility, so I am certainly open to the possibility that I do, “not understand what it is that he is reading”; could you provide some specific examples?

>>David, I would like for you to show me where you think I might disagree with Lampe, or where you think Kostenberger and Kruger might disagree with him. Perhaps you're willing to tell me just how the work of these individuals is at odds and then we can discuss the specifics of it, and only then you can genuinely begin to charge me with intellectual dishonesty. Or not.>>

Me: First, once again, I have not charged you with “intellectual dishonesty”. Second, I would like to present some of Lampe’s positions which I suspect you (as well as K&K) would not agree with—which, as you probably know, come via the same methods that Lampe uses to arrive at his historical assessments (e.g. form criticism, redaction criticism, et al.).

I shall begin with the following from Lampe’s pen:

“The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals.

For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor 1:1; Rim 16:21…

How did the author come to the mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca?” (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, pp. 158, 159.)

Now, do you believe that “the deutero-Pauline author” (Lampe’s words/take, not mine) of 2 Timothy made a “mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca”? DO YOU DISAGREE WITH LAMPE?

Grace and peace,

David
4:18 PM, August 25, 2010

[Note: I have corrected a typo in the original, changing "of 1 Timothy made" to "of 2 Timothy made".]

The thread then went off-topic, so John started yet another NEW THREAD to respond to my above post. In the opening post of this new thread John wrote:

The issue here seems to be that Lampe doesn't accept that 2 Timothy was actually written by Paul.

No, that is not the issue (concerning my belief that John has at times been inconsistent in his methodology) at all (and btw, I agree with John concerning the author of the Pastorals). As such, I responded to John with:

Hi John,

I should be in bed, but could not resist checking BA before I headed upstairs…thanks for responding to my comments; you wrote:

>>The issue here seems to be that Lampe doesn't accept that 2 Timothy was actually written by Paul.>>Me: No, that is not “the issue” at all (even though I disagree with Lampe); “the issue” is whether or not you agree with Lampe that there are mistakes in the Bible. In addition to his belief that the author of 2 Tim made a “mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca” (forgive my earlier typo), he also believes the author of 1Tim made a mistake concerning the location of Timothy.I asked a very simple question that you did not answer, and shall ask it again (with a typo correction and expansion): do you disagree with Lampe concerning mistakes being made in 1 Tim and 2 Tim?

Grace and peace,

David
11:05 PM, August 25, 2010

In one of John's subsequent responses (in the combox of the above lined thread), he wrote:

Here again, in this question about Lampe vs. K&K, you are going to ridiculous lengths to strain at a gnat and try to force me to the conclusion that there is some inconsistency between two sources that I like and highly recommend.

No, yet once again, John is not accurately representing my position. I have not, in my above response, brought K&K into the picture yet; rather, I am merely asking John if he agrees with Lampe concerning his belief that the author/s of 1 and 2 Timothy have made historical errors. I ask this very simple question because it has a direct relationship to one of his requests—here is that request yet once again:

David, I would like for you to show me where you think I might disagree with Lampe, or where you think Kostenberger and Kruger might disagree with him.

I am sincerely wondering if I am the only one who is baffled by John's responses; I find the following from his pen revealing, and a bit troubling:

No, I am not going to answer your question. These issues no doubt are discussed in great detail in some of the commentaries that you reportedly own. Look them up and come to your own conclusions.

John, the issue is not what others may think about Lampe's position, but rather WHAT YOU THINK—the context of your request concerns YOU.

I want to apologize to readers who may think that this thread may be too lengthy, but in my defense, I have attempted to give everyone a solid context of my dialogue with John. Further, I would not have created this particular thread if the posting anomalies in the comboxes over at BA were non-existent.

In my next thread I plan to provide another selection from Lampe that I suspect John with disagree with.


Grace and peace,

David

32 comments:

John Bugay said...

First of all, if I failed to expunge every mention or copy of the word "intellectual dishonesty" from the many posts and comments that I made that day (and there were several topics being discussed at the same time), with multiple instances of your comments being sucked into an errant Blogger spam filter, or some other such thing), then I hereby recant, and say, I apologize for not catching every instance of this.

You did not accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty."

But what you did accuse me of was "intellectual inconsistency," and I did respond to that, at some length. David, unlike you, I am not blessed with an abundance of leisure time to mull over blogs and cajole out what I perceive to be inconsistencies in other people's work. There is an imbalance here, in that, while I seem to be an important focus of your studies here, you do not hold a similar place on my list of priorities.


You seem to have developed an unhealthy fixation on whether or not I think that Lampe is correct "concerning mistakes being made in 1 Tim and 2 Tim?"

You'll have to tell me why this important.

Is this question ("do you disagree with Lampe concerning mistakes being made in 1 Tim and 2 Tim?") the only question to which you require an answer? As I read your post here (quickly and with an eye toward my other duties of the day), it seems as if it is.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

As salamu 'alikum Sheikh Dawoud AbdulTawwab!!!

Peace be unto Sheikh David the servant of the one who accepts repentance and makes sound the heart!

Allahu Akbar Ramadhan has been beautiful and blessed! A month of immense barakah and rejuvenation. Insh"Allah so sad to see it go by so quickly.

Pray you are in the best of health and faith. May Allah always be a source of peace and succor and may Allah help you from places you never imagined! Ameen!

I thought you were a way so happy to see you around and ty for the Ramadhan wishes! Mash'Allah :)

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:

Do not wish to digress here, but it does remind me a bit of James White’s charge/s leveled against Muslim apologists who quote “liberal”, critical Christian scholars in their debates, whilst James allows himself to use “liberal” and critical Islamic scholars.


1. David, Can you give a specific example of this?


2. That is not the exact charge that Dr. White makes - he is not saying Muslims cannot use any liberal Islamic scholarship at all at any time for any reason; he is saying the specific example of them using liberals/skeptics/non- inerrantists ( like Bart Ehrman/Bultmann/Crossan/and even James Dunn, who is not as liberal as the rest) against the text of the NT undermines the Muslims whole Islamic religion and the Qur'an, since the Qur'an affirms the Torah, Zobur (Psalms of David) and Injeel (Gospel) of Jesus as revelation from the one true Creator God who is able to speak and inspire books.

Islam claims it is the third in line of the Monotheistic religions and that the first two (Judaism - law and prophets and Psalms) and Christianity (Injeel) were given truly at that time in a dispensational kind of way. Dr. White is saying that their attacks on Scripture undermine Islam as the 3rd religion that "completes all religions", since Islam itself is based on those those 2 previous religions and their books.


David, Do you see the difference?

Ken said...

oops -

he is not saying Muslims cannot use any liberal Islamic scholarship at all at any time for any reason;

Should have been:

he is not saying Muslims cannot use any liberal Christian scholarship at all at any time for any reason; . . .

John Bugay said...

David -- perhaps you are aware, perhaps not, that I responded this morning. That response has disappeared.

The first thing that I said was that, if I have not corrected every instance of those times when I said you had charged me with "intellectual dishonesty" instead of "intellectual inconsistency," I apologize.


Second:

You said: Lampe's critical methodology permeates his scholarly work--the inconsistency of John lies in his willingness to accept Lampe's critical methodology in a very narrow venue—i.e. wherein he undermines certain Roman Catholic claims—but then rejects Lampe's critical methodology when it works against his worldview.

This simply is not the case. You are saying you may have found several (?) instances in which I would not accept Lampe's conclusions (or rather, his starting points in some cases).

In the one (1) instance you give, it is that Lampe feels there is some kind of error in Paul's accounting of the travel schedule of Aquila and Priscilla in the letters of Paul to Timothy. (?)

I have addressed this issue at some length. The gist of my answer is that this has absolutely nothing (or if anything, very little) play within his overall conclusion.

But his overall conclusion is the result of a thorough examination of the history of ancient Rome. His views of the Scriptures form only one small part of that work. Lampe's "critical methodology" is to have seemingly examined each and every scrap of paper from that era, each and every inscription, each and every available public record, in order to come to his conclusions.

Tell me how his view on text-critical item 6d has any impact at all on his overall historical conclusions?


If you are going to make this charge, you should be prepared to articulate just what Lampe's "critical methodology" is -- his work is a work of history -- and how it impacts the kinds of things that not only I have been saying about his work, but scholars like Eamon Duffy, Robert Eno, Karl Donfried, Roger Collins, and others, also accept his work on the early history of the church in Rome.

natamllc said...

David

attempting to reclaim some resemblance of clarity, I posted this at Beggars All in response to your follow up comments to mine.

I wrote: "I did not know that acceptance with a particular group was something that was on your radar screen. We are all on "spiritual journeys"

Indeed those were John's words and he was responding to yours about your own spiritual journey. I was pointing out that observation of John's was ironic and when following its entirety, the quote, I was saying it's ironic for him to point that out seeing there is some confusion as to where you stand with regard to Christian Faith or the Ba'hai faith or being a Jehovah's Witness affiliate, if you were? I recall John asking you pointedly about "just where do you stand"? That was my point in using John's comment. Just where do you stand? You did respond to the most recent thread citing clearly your core beliefs have not "changed" like some of ours have. I responded to that in that thread's combox. That thread dealt with the Aquila and Priscilla matter.

Seeing the spiritual journey is coming clearer and clearer for myself, this common salvation, as well as for you; and seeing you would engage John with errors being made by him, isn't it appropriate then that you should respond to what I posted here from there now, or not? I would be happy to go back there and look for your response?

It would clear up a lot of confusion about you and just how you step walking through this life's spiritual journey?

I do not take issue with your inquiry to John and how you believe he is being inconsistent in his scholarly work at Beggar's All or even here, above in interpreting Lampe or any other works.

Why?

I am not a learned man of these things the way you or he is so I have no basis for judgment on these things.

My learning is purely the Bible and exegesis and interpretations of verses capturing the essence of the messages, both the Law and the Gospel. Consequently my basis for commenting is grounded in the Word more than in historical citations and commenting on understandings of historical works written and read and understood.

That in no way reflects poorly on either approach as both embrace one's spiritual journey. I do judge your spiritual journey by the words I read you write. If you have any audio links of your sermons or talks, post them and I will be happy to listen to them and give you my best understanding of what I heard?

You can take one's understanding captured by their historical premise or you can take the literal writings of the Bible or combine both to make your defenses, seeing the Spirit governs all Truth spoken or written. He it is who will be that still small voice behind you and in the deep places within you chiming and tolling the Bells of Truth and error, so as to be guided into Truth, liberated from all falsehoods about history's facts and the Truth Himself can exegete correctly through you, either from the pulpit or off the pages of the pen or on some radio broadcast or T.V. presentation.

So, what would you? Would you comment now or pass a message that you will start a new thread and address my concerns about your spiritual journey based on your responses, assertions and comments in here and elsewhere? Or will you pass and live another day silent on my request?

natamllc said...

David

attempting to reclaim some resemblance of clarity, I posted this at Beggars All in response to your follow up comments to mine.

I wrote: "I did not know that acceptance with a particular group was something that was on your radar screen. We are all on "spiritual journeys"

Indeed those were John's words and he was responding to yours about your own spiritual journey. I was pointing out that observation of John's was ironic and when following its entirety, the quote, I was saying it's ironic for him to point that out seeing there is some confusion as to where you stand with regard to Christian Faith or the Ba'hai faith or being a Jehovah's Witness affiliate, if you were? I recall John asking you pointedly about "just where do you stand"? That was my point in using John's comment. Just where do you stand? You did respond to the most recent thread citing clearly your core beliefs have not "changed" like some of ours have. I responded to that in that thread's combox. That thread dealt with the Aquila and Priscilla matter.

Seeing the spiritual journey is coming clearer and clearer for myself, this common salvation, as well as for you; and seeing you would engage John with errors being made by him, isn't it appropriate then that you should respond to what I posted here from there now, or not? I would be happy to go back there and look for your response?

It would clear up a lot of confusion about you and just how you step walking through this life's spiritual journey?

I do not take issue with your inquiry to John and how you believe he is being inconsistent in his scholarly work at Beggar's All or even here, above in interpreting Lampe or any other works.

Why?

I am not a learned man of these things the way you or he is so I have no basis for judgment on these things.

My learning is purely the Bible and exegesis and interpretations of verses capturing the essence of the messages, both the Law and the Gospel. Consequently my basis for commenting is grounded in the Word more than in historical citations and commenting on understandings of historical works written and read and understood.

That in no way reflects poorly on either approach as both embrace one's spiritual journey. I do judge your spiritual journey by the words I read you write. If you have any audio links of your sermons or talks, post them and I will be happy to listen to them and give you my best understanding of what I heard?

You can take one's understanding captured by their historical premise or you can take the literal writings of the Bible or combine both to make your defenses, seeing the Spirit governs all Truth spoken or written. He it is who will be that still small voice behind you and in the deep places within you chiming and tolling the Bells of Truth and error, so as to be guided into Truth, liberated from all falsehoods about history's facts and the Truth Himself can exegete correctly through you, either from the pulpit or off the pages of the pen or on some radio broadcast or T.V. presentation.

So, what would you? Would you comment now or pass a message that you will start a new thread and address my concerns about your spiritual journey based on your responses, assertions and comments in here and elsewhere? Or will you pass and live another day silent on my request?

natamllc said...

My post keeps disappearing!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.


Since Ken is practicing Philippians 1:18

when he says, "Muslims whole Islamic religion and the Qur'an, since the Qur'an affirms the Torah, Zobur (Psalms of David) and Injeel (Gospel) of Jesus as revelation from the one true Creator God who is able to speak and inspire books."

anyone who is interested to see this propaganda soundly refuted is most welcome to read:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true-part-3.html

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true-part-2.html

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true.html

Any Christian who thinks that the Qur'an settles the intra-Christian dispute on "NT" canon if it was 22 or 27 books or the intra-Christian dispute on the "OT" canon if it was 37 or 46 books is simply dishonest

Any Christian who thinks the Qur'an confirms Mark 16:9-20, and John 8:1-11 (both accepted as canon at the time of Qur'anic revelation) is sleeping at the wheel.

David Waltz said...

Hello all,

Have been out all day, and I am briefly checking in before I 'hit-the-hay'.

Ken: As for James' remarks concerning Muslim apologists, I am pretty sure it was in at least 2 DL webcasts, and I think on his "Iron-Sharpens-Iron" interview; will try to track down exactly what was said on Monday. Perhaps you could email James and get his exact view on the use of liberal scholars by not only Muslims, but also Mormons.

John: Have so much to comment on concerning Dr. Lampe's approach; a full assessment will have to wait until Monday, but briefly, I believe that he holds much in common with Walter Bauer and Bart Erhman.

natamllc: This is the first I have heard of disappearing posts here at AF; sure seems that Blogger is experiencing some technical problems. I am anything but a 'tekkie' (sp?), so I have no idea what is going on, and no idea on how to rectify the problem.

GV19: Was not "away", just busy with outdoor projects.

Anyway, good to see all of you here; if the vanishing posts problem persists, email me you posts, and I will put them up. As for further reflections on my part, tomorrow is 'booked full' you will not see me back until Monday.

Take care and God bless,

David

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
anyone who is interested to see this propaganda soundly refuted is most welcome to read:

Your series did not refute the truth of the Bible or what I was saying at all. It still stands and you refuted nothing. The truth of the Bible is what refutes the Qur’an, since the Qur’an came 600 years later and is not inspired at all. Whatever good is in the Qur’an is stolen from the previous Scriptures, the OT and the NT. Muhammad did not know the details of the Bible, but he thought he did; by hearing about it orally and some others seemed to have redacted his original material. The Qur’an affirms the Bible, especially in 5:46-48 and 5:68 and 10:94 and 2:136 and 29:46 and other places, because the writers of the Qur’an thought the previous Scriptures were perfect and unchangeable without even knowing what it was all about and did not know the contents of it. “No one can change the words of Allah” is said many times in the Qur’an, which I showed here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/no-one-can-change-words-of-god.html

Anyway, your material refuted nothing. More below and “Inshallah” (If God wills), later with more details.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
Any Christian who thinks that the Qur'an settles the intra-Christian dispute on "NT" canon if it was 22 or 27 books or the intra-Christian dispute on the "OT" canon if it was 37 or 46 books is simply dishonest.

I Never said the Qur’an settles the canon issue, so you are being dishonest now, if you think I have ever claimed that the Qur’an settles the canon issue, either OT or NT. The canon issue was settled long before the Qur’an came along. Origen quoted all the NT books as Scripture, the same 27, around 255 AD. Anthanasius wrote them all in a list in 367 AD. You throwing out the issue of “NT 22 vs. 27 books” is a red herring and has nothing to do with the issue of here at all.

Here is a good article on the 27 book of the NT issue:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/twenty-seven-book-new-testament-before.html


You need to digest all of these excellent articles to get a proper handle on the canon and church history and what led to the Reformation:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html


Even so, if we take the 22 NT books (all four gospels, Acts, all of Paul’s epistles, 1 Peter, I John) that were universally agreed upon by the churches in the Christian world by 250 AD, they still all take down Islam as a false religion, since they all affirm all the doctrines that make Christianity true and show Islam to be false. Here I am assuming you mean what Origen and Eusebius called 5 books, “disputed” – (Rev., Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, Jude) – “disputed” just means that some parts of the Christian world questioned them and were not sure. But other parts of the Christian world had some of these books – for example Irenaeus alludes to or quotes from every NT book except Philemon, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, and James. He alludes to a lot of material from Revelation extensively and he is writing between 180-200 AD. I Clement, written in 96 AD, quotes extensively from Hebrews. The big thing to remember is that all the NT books were written separately to different places, from different places and by different authors. The fact that the Early Church was under persecution and on the run, and that the Romans burned many of the earliest copies explains why did not have time to collect all of the 27 books under one cover in all the places until after the persecution died down. Christianity grew under persecution; Islam did not; Islam used the power of the sword to force the Arabians to submit and then the rest of the Byzantine, Persian Empires and N. Africa were all conquered by aggressive, unjust, evil wars. And Islam used the power of the sword to burn all other copies under Uthman and create the text of the Quran, which is the basic one for the Qur’an today. Islam used the power of the state, politics, force, Sharia law, and military power, and taxation to subjugate and subdue and created its text. Christianity is honest with its textual variants. The average Muslim denies that there are any variants in the Qur’an, yet there are, as some Muslim scholars admit.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote: “Any Christian who thinks the Qur'an confirms Mark 16:9-20, and John 8:1-11 (both accepted as canon at the time of Qur'anic revelation) is sleeping at the wheel.

As I told you before, Mark chapter 15 and 16:1-8 takes down Islam also, as it testifies to the details of the crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus, and the endings of Matthew, Luke, John, and beginning of Acts supply us with all the “God-breathed” details of the resurrection and great commission and ascension of Jesus, so not having Mark 16:9-20 does no damage at all to the Christian message. Lacking John 8 also does no damage to the Gospel of the Messiah, His mission, His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, and so it is you my friend who are “sleeping at the wheel”.

Therefore, it does not matter if some churches questioned 5 (or 7 books – some others doubted 2 and 3 John) of the NT books, or that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8:1-11 is not in the earliest manuscripts. Even without those, the gospel of Jesus as Son of God, God the Son, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the substitutionary sacrifice of the innocent lamb of God for the sins of humans from all the nations (Rev. 5:9; Mark 10:45; John 1:29); the resurrection of Christ from the dead; justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone; the inherent sinfulness and blindness and deadness of all humans; ie, the doctrines of the “gospel” are all there in the undisputed NT texts, the gospel, which the Qur’an affirms (2:136; 5:46-48; 5:68; 10:94) still stand after you try to cast doubt on the NT by throwing out red herrings.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Ken....let me simply quote you

"the writers of the Qur’an thought the previous Scriptures were perfect and unchangeable without even knowing what it was all about and DID NOT KNOW THE CONTENTS OF IT."

Your getting there guy!

As far as PST it is refuted by (Deut 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Matthew 18:22-26 and Qur'an 22:37) inherited sin refuted by Ezekiel 18:18-20 and Qur'an chapter 55:38)

continued..

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued as far as your un original borrowed polemic from good ol JW

"Islam used the power of the sword to burn all other copies under Uthman and create the text of the Quran, which is the basic one for the Qur’an today. Islam used the power of the state, politics, force, Sharia law, and military power, and taxation to subjugate and subdue and created its text. Christianity is honest with its textual variants"

As brother Abdullah Kunde points out your argument is basically,

"Christian scholarship is honest as it hides nothing, Islamic scholarship hides things and is therefore dishonest."

For those who do not have a covering over their eyes or a veil upon their hearts you are most welcome to see a complete refutation of that here:

http://apologeticstudent.blogspot.com/2010/01/after-they-start-burning-books.html

Go back and listen to your hero JW notice that he tempers his claim as of late? He says that we never had any "WHOLESALE burning of manuscripts".

What does wholesale mean? -In large bulk or quantity.


"So Marcion was a prolific writer, who had many followers over a few centuries to spread the writings around. Therefore, we would assume something of his writings would survive to this day, if Christians never destroyed heterodox texts."

Remember him? The 'OT' God is not the same as the 'NT' God. Not the same god huh? Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Marcion sure did have an affinity for Paul and his writings didn't he?

So now we are told he edited things, and he did this and he did that? Well if we don't have the guy's writings it's left to the creative imagination to say what he did or did not do now isn't it?

Dunno about you people but I for one as a Muslim would love to be able to have some of Marcion's writings because we all know how an opponent can accurately represent one's teachings don't we Ken?

:)

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
"As brother Abdullah Kunde points out your argument is basically,

"Christian scholarship is honest as it hides nothing, Islamic scholarship hides things and is therefore dishonest."

No, my argument was more nuanced and subtle than that; go back and read it again.

GV19 wrote, about Marcion:
"Remember him? The 'OT' God is not the same as the 'NT' God. Not the same god huh? Sounds familiar doesn't it?"

Yes, Marcion rejected the OT completely and cut out the first two chapters of Luke and other parts that had OT quotes in it.

We have the entire OT intact. It is the word of God. The law (Torah) is similar to the laws of Islam in some ways; but Islam's law is legalism and has no power or Holy Spirit in it; and is unjust toward women.

I can't tell if you think Marcion would be a friend of Islam or not.

Marcion would be no friend of Islam, as he hated the OT, which is similar to Islam in some ways - the harsh punishments for some sins; holy wars, external washings; external dress; food laws; national feasts; taxes (3 different tithes) (like Zakat).

The NT shows us that the external rituals cannot cleanse the heart. Mark 7:14-23.


GV19 wrote:
"Marcion sure did have an affinity for Paul and his writings didn't he?"

Except when a book or passage didn't fit his agenda and his own mind. Marcion also rejected I Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus; other epistles of the apostle Paul.


GV19 wrote:
"So now we are told he edited things, and he did this and he did that? Well if we don't have the guy's writings it's left to the creative imagination to say what he did or did not do now isn't it?"

The argument that you and Adbullah Kunde are using is an argument from silence. The Nag hammadi library books were found and they expose the Gnostics as heretics and nuts. Gospel of Thomas has a statement in it that "women must become males in order to be saved", (I'll get the exact quote later) etc.; yet other parts of it are used by feminist radical theologians like Elaine Pagels to promote their agenda against orthodox Christianity and the canon. Same for Dan Brown of the DaVinci Code fame. There is no evidence of documentation that there is massive burning of Marcion works; as there is lots of evidence about Uthman's burning of the Qur'ans. His ideas died out, because they were heretical and evil.

Tertullian (around 200 AD) goes into great detail and length as to what Marcion believed and Tertullian refutes his ideas.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.i.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.html

You and Abdullah should read all of Tertullian and all of Irenaeus (against other Gnostics) before you make such empty arguments.

Ken said...

The liberal media tries to push Gnosticism and create doubts about the Biblical canon, by celebrating Dan Brown's DaVinci Code and Elaine Pagels books; suggesting that other books were "voted" out by the council of Nicea (which is not true, the council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.)

What Dan Brown and Elaine Pagels Don't tell people is this gem from heretical "The Gospel of Thomas", which is no gospel at all. No wonder Ireneaus and Tertullian were so good in writing against the Gnostics!
Gospel of Thomas, verse 114

"Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are
not worthy of Life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her
male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you
males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven."

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,

Ken says,

"Tertullian (around 200 AD) goes into great detail and length as to what Marcion believed and Tertullian refutes his ideas:"

Of which I already anticipated in advance with my sarcastic remark in prior post

"Dunno about you people but I for one as a Muslim would love to be able to have some of Marcion's writings because WE ALL KNOW HOW AN OPPONENT CAN ACCURATELY REPRESENT ONE'S TEACHINGS don't we Ken?"

< Shrugs shoulders.

Some people get it and some don't

Ken said...

GV19-
Your anticipation and sarcastic remark just prove you are too lazy to do real historical research -

Since you haven't read Tertullian or Irenaeus in their refutation of heresies and Gnostics, and the Nag Hammadi discoveries prove them to be right in their evaluation of Gnosticism, (Gospel of Thomas 114 proves this to name one example) and liberals and Muslims are trying to use Gnosticism as a "lost Christianity" and they lie about council of Nicea being about the canon; and there is no evidence of any Christian systematic burning of Gnostic writings; therefore it is you guys (both Liberals and Muslims, see below) who don't study the available historical evidence in depth or accurately and then make illogical and irrational and untrue arguments.

(both liberals and Muslims are the same in their methods and attacks against orthodox Christianity; and I might add, they are similar in their approach to Islam and the whole Jihad and Islamic Terror issues too.)

Ken said...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/08/last-waltz.html

David,
Steve Hays has also refuted your point.

And I developed my answer more here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/getting-to-specific-issue.html

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

I am taking a break from my outdoor projects, so I would now like to address some of your reflections from in your August 28th post—you wrote:

>>David -- perhaps you are aware, perhaps not, that I responded this morning. That response has disappeared.>>

Me: No I was not aware of this; it sure seems that Blogger is having some serious technical problems—I am going to email them and let them know what has been happening, if you have not done so yet, maybe you could too.

>>The first thing that I said was that, if I have not corrected every instance of those times when I said you had charged me with "intellectual dishonesty" instead of "intellectual inconsistency," I apologize.>>

Me: Thanks much.

>>Second:

You said: Lampe's critical methodology permeates his scholarly work--the inconsistency of John lies in his willingness to accept Lampe's critical methodology in a very narrow venue—i.e. wherein he undermines certain Roman Catholic claims—but then rejects Lampe's critical methodology when it works against his worldview.

This simply is not the case. You are saying you may have found several (?) instances in which I would not accept Lampe's conclusions (or rather, his starting points in some cases).

In the one (1) instance you give, it is that Lampe feels there is some kind of error in Paul's accounting of the travel schedule of Aquila and Priscilla in the letters of Paul to Timothy. (?)>>

Me: I gave two instances; note the following:

“The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals.

For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor 1:1; Rim 16:21…

How did the author come to the mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca?” (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, pp. 158, 159.) [4:18 PM, August 25, 2010 BA post]

>>I have addressed this issue at some length. The gist of my answer is that this has absolutely nothing (or if anything, very little) play within his overall conclusion.>>

Me: I disagree, it establishes the fact that though Lampe is willing to use the NT historical portions, he does so without the presuppositions of conservative NT scholars.

>>But his overall conclusion is the result of a thorough examination of the history of ancient Rome. His views of the Scriptures form only one small part of that work. Lampe's "critical methodology" is to have seemingly examined each and every scrap of paper from that era, each and every inscription, each and every available public record, in order to come to his conclusions.>>

Me: Lampe is basically a NT version of William G. Dever; both are willing to interact with the Biblical texts but archeology and secular history carry more weight for both men. Further, both men believe that “orthodoxy” came after “heresy”, and both men believe that the faithful are willing to create “myths” to bolster “orthodoxy”. In Dever’s case the exodus of a massive population of Israelites from Egypt to Palestine is a myth; he also believes that prior to the Babylonian captivity, the Israelites were polytheists (as does pretty much every critical scholar of the OT since the Albright era). Lampe believes in an incredible diversity among Christians prior the work of the ‘apologists’, and that the majority position among Christians (what he terms “the Great Church”—i.e. proto-Catholicism) prior to the end of the second century was that of modalism.

cont’d

David Waltz said...

cont’d

Now, sometimes conservative and liberal scholars arrive at the same conclusions, however when two differing conservative paradigms differ over a given position I believe it is inconsistent for either side to appeal to liberals who may agree with them; but, in the field of polemics, this happens way to often. Conservative Mormons appeal to Dever, but when Dever’s methods are applied to the Book of Mormon, they reject those methods; conservative Muslims appeal Ehrman, but when Ehrman’s critical methods are turned on the textual history of the Qur’an they too end up rejecting such methods; and when conservative Protestants turn to critical scholars like Lampe to undermine the primacy of the bishop Rome and apostolic succession, when his methods are applied to the NT they reject the conclusions. That some liberal Catholic scholars agree with Lampe and other critical scholars concerning the early Church should come as no surprise, just as some liberal Protestant scholars agree with the Dever and Ehrman types should come as no surprise.


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

David you said,

"conservative Muslims appeal Ehrman, but when Ehrman’s critical methods are turned on the textual history of the Qur’an they too end up rejecting such methods;"

We are not aware that Ehrman has applied such methods to the Qur'an in fact I would love for him to. The amazing thing is James White tries to goad Ehrman into saying things about the Qur'an and than gets antsy when Ehrman admits that is not his field of expertise.


However, all these arguments about the Qur'an using apocryphal literature like the infancy gospel, or quoting from the Jewish Talmud and so forth, or these arguments that the Qur'an misunderstands the Trinity are old hat that Christians make known today from the Zwelmer institute in Chicago, and these arguments themselves were borrowed from orientalist who give ascendancy to liberal scholarship.

When one reads "James the brother of Jesus" by Robert Eiseman will see him make the same attacks upon the Qur'an over the issues above.

The difference between us as Muslims and the so called conservatives among the Christians is we don't cry liberalism and atheism every time someone lodges an attack on Islam.

The big difference is that we focus on the merit of the arguments presented by Patricia Crone and their kind with out jumping up and down screaming for a witch trial.

You don't see a Muslim scholar stand up before a group of Muslims and say 'Patricia Crone' is a liberal........and than try and poison the well sounds to me that people who truly are afraid of critique do these things.

continued..

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued from above.

In fact if I was to debate James White or any opponent I would demand an absolute list of writings or works accepted by my opponent as authoritative before I engaged him/her in public debate.

I'll tell you why. Allah-willing I will post all four of White-Shabir's debate and show you the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Shabir does his home work and no doubt did ask James for a reference of works, but guess what as soon as Shabir starts quoting these works and references than James is like "well I don't agree with that" or "I don't accept this" or "we have differences over that".

Seems to me in this case the only authority worth quoting is James himself!

I never would debate anyone like that because you will always loose, they are a scholarship and a law unto themselves.

I would sincerely love to see conservative Christians come up with a list of authoritative works from the early church fathers to the present that Muslims could quote from without the opposition shifting and dodging and screaming "appeal to authority"! omg "appeal to authority"!

When Christians desperately try and prove as 'historical' that Christ Jesus 'died' on a 'cross' and they quote the bazillion scholars who agree with them I don't scream "appeal to authority"!

It gets old! Let's just lay the cards out on the table and see what arguments are solid and what are not.

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Thanks for responding; you posted:

>>David you said,

"conservative Muslims appeal Ehrman, but when Ehrman’s critical methods are turned on the textual history of the Qur’an they too end up rejecting such methods;"

We are not aware that Ehrman has applied such methods to the Qur'an in fact I would love for him to. The amazing thing is James White tries to goad Ehrman into saying things about the Qur'an and than gets antsy when Ehrman admits that is not his field of expertise.>>

Me: I did not say that “Ehrman has applied such methods to the Qur'an”, I said that, “Ehrman’s critical methods are turned on the textual history of the Qur’an”. I had in mind such critical scholars as Arthur Jeffery (“Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an”), John Burton (“The Collection of the Qur’an”), and Andrew Rippin (numerous works).

>> However, all these arguments about the Qur'an using apocryphal literature like the infancy gospel, or quoting from the Jewish Talmud and so forth, or these arguments that the Qur'an misunderstands the Trinity are old hat that Christians make known today from the Zwelmer institute in Chicago, and these arguments themselves were borrowed from orientalist who give ascendancy to liberal scholarship.>>

Me: Interesting, need to check out this “Zwelmer institute in Chicago”.

>> When one reads "James the brother of Jesus" by Robert Eiseman will see him make the same attacks upon the Qur'an over the issues above.>>

Me: I read that book a quite some time ago, do not recall his “attacks upon the Qur'an”; if you know the page numbers where he does so, could you list them for me? Also, are you aware of any Christian apologists who cite Eisenman?

>> In fact if I was to debate James White or any opponent I would demand an absolute list of writings or works accepted by my opponent as authoritative before I engaged him/her in public debate.>>

Me: That would be an excellent request GV; perhaps it should become a prerequisite for all debates.


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,

My apologies for the misunderstanding about Ehrman as now I see what you meant.

You said,

": I read that book a quite some time ago, do not recall his “attacks upon the Qur'an”; if you know the page numbers where he does so, could you list them for me? Also, are you aware of any Christian apologists who cite Eisenman?"

It to has been some time since reading the book, and he didn't directly attack the Qur'an as he did so artfully by attacking in a round about way.

Namely If the Qur'an says Jesus was born of a virgin and we know that in the NT this is a mistranslation of the Septuagint it puts doubt in the Qur'an.

He also did bring up the Qur'an quoting apocryphal sources, as far as exact references as I do not have the book that will have to be forthcoming, as I also still need to write a review of the book that you sent me as well.

Yes I would like to see people of all faiths be more forth coming about what is and what is not appropriate material to quote, other wise you feel your playing dodge ball other than trying to have an academic debate where points are addressed academically.


Grace and Peace to you David :)

Ken said...

The Zwemer Institute is not in Chicago.
It started in Pasadena, Ca. at the US Center for World Mission, later relocated at Ft. Wayne, In. and in 2004 moved to Columbia, SC, as part of Columbia International University.

The difficulty with each side putting forward an appropriate list of authoritative sources is that every detail is not necessarily accepted in every source, since for Protestant Evangelicals, only the Bible is inerrant and infallible.

And since revelation ceased when the last NT Scripture was written, whether it was Jude (see Jude verse 3 - "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints) in 80 AD or Revelation in 96 AD; then all claims of subsequent revelation are by nature, not revelation from God.

Isa Al Massih was and is "the final word to mankind", and His apostles wrote the revelation down. (Jude 3, Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 22:18 - yes I know that is about that book, but by principle, if it was the last one written, in 96 AD, then the principle is the same.

Ken said...

GV19-
Thanks for searching for me by google and listening to my message exhorting Christians to love Muslims and reach out to them and be prepared to share the gospel with them. I hope and pray that God touches your heart with His love, because Christ died for His enemies, sinners, ungodly, rebellious, helpless (Romans 5:6-11), which even you admitted, that "some one who dies for their enemy has greater love".


Because of your unjust and malicious ban of me at your site
( I will honor you unwelcoming me and will not post there)

- I will have to ask this here -

Ask David if he believes that Jesus the Messiah died on a Roman cross in real history, in space and time, around 30 AD under the Jewish leaders and under Pontius Pilate?

David, you do? You already answered me, but you need to answer to the GV19.

If that is true, then what is wrong with quoting liberal scholars on that issue, but they believe in real history; yet they do not believe in the Virgin Birth or supernatural revelation or God-breathing out Scriptures or sending prophets and apostles, etc. -

then

since Islam is based on God and monotheism and the previous Scriptures and God's supernatural power, (and even affirms the gospel and Torah and Zobur)

don't you both (GV19, David Waltz) see the inconsistency of using the liberals to undermine the Bible, but it is not inconsistent to use them for real history, since the history of crucifixion is not a miraculous thing within itself. (Obviously, we Christians do believe it was a great miracle because of the spiritual reality and meaning of it - the voluntary giving of an innocent perfect life for the sins of people from all nations (John 10:18; I John 2:2; Rev. 5:9; Romans 5:6-11; Acts 2:22-24; Acts 4:27-28) - the atonement and the effectiveness of it against sin.

Aside from the miraculous nature of it; just the simple historical fact is what I am talking about that a man named Jesus was crucified by the Jewish leaders (they did the plot and instigated and forced Pilate by manipulation)and Romans (actually doing the nailing and giving the commands),

Do you see the inconsistency?
Islam denies real history. In itself, it is not miraculous that Jesus was crucified by the Jews and Romans.

Yet, Islam denies this history, but accepts the miraculous nature of God inspiring prophets and apostles and sending books down for mankind, yet uses liberals to undermine the previous Scriptures, which Islam is based on.

Each case of history or Scripture has to be examined on a case by case instance; one cannot just "blanket" everything as inconsistent just because someone else that they agree with on one thing, says something else that they don't agree with.

Ken said...

David -
Dever on the OT undermines the OT.

Lampe on Rome in church history does not undermine the NT. (because the issue is about subsequent archeology and history, not the Biblical text - don't you see the difference?

Dever is using archeology to say God does not exist; or the the God of the Bible is not the true God, monotheism and theism is not true, etc.

Lampe, even thought he is liberal on the details of Romans 16 and 2 Tim. 4 and the pastorals, his archeology of the issues of the "plurality of elders" from AD 70 forward, vs. "mono-episcopate bishop" do not undermine the NT on that issue , because the NT actually affirms the plurality of elders as the proper local church government, not a mono-episcopate. ( Titus 1:5-7; Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 4:14)

John Bugay said...

Ken, I wish I could have said that so succinctly.

Ken said...

Also,
I Clement (paragraph 44) (96 AD) shows that elder (presbuteros) and bishop (episcopate) was inter-changable and the same office/person;and he writes for the church of Rome (preface, verse 1 and following), and never calls himself bishop - he was one of a group of elders - this confirms Lampe on Rome and the Bible on the proper church leadership- a plurality of elders/pastors/teachers/overseers (all the same office) - Acts 20:17, 28; 14:23; Titus 1:5-7.

Ken said...

Thanks John!