Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

[WestminsterMan]

Who said I denied the RCC influence on that? Don't put words in my mouth.

Interesting. My initial statement was...

Galileo supported a theory which could not be proven at the time. Galileo held to the Copernicum heliocentric system and wrote of it as fact, which violated the scientific method created by the Catholic university system. That theory wouldn't be proven until much later at which time it was accepted by the scientific community. Clearly you don't recognize the difference between fact and theory...no surprise.

WM

Next…

What a hoot! And there you have stated it -- the scientific method created by the Catholic university system!

It is the Catholic Church which doesn't recognize the difference between fact and theory since it took them until 1992 to admit the truth that the earth revolves around the sun! And the pope had to announce it at that, or it still wouldn't "officially" be accepted as fact!

Yep, this is the church that Jesus founded, alright; I can see everywhere in scripture the imprint of the RCC!

With which I followed up…

The Roman Catholic Church CREATED the university system, and the scientific method. That IS a fact. Whether you find that to be funny or not is of no importance.

Your retort?

What is of importance is the absolute ludicrousness of what you are feebly attempting to maintain.

I bet you believe that Al Gore invented the internet, too.

So on the one hand you state explicitly of my statement: “The Roman Catholic Church CREATED the university system, and the scientific method” to be the “…absolute ludicrousness of what you are feebly attempting to maintain.” While on the other hand, you now state:

Who said I denied the RCC influence on that? Don't put words in my mouth.

Wow – you are one conflicted individual.

WM

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly so that is what the Catholic Church is speaking about when it speaks about tradition. And that coupled with the scriptures are the deposit of faith!!!

The Canon is currently closed and what Jesus directly to the apostles are revelations from God not just what was writen down. However, it was a while before canon was closed. That is to say that doesn't mean all the books weren't already written but which books were to be canon wasn't decided until some time later. From the Catachism

exactly as the catachism says

They were inspired truths (which is a revelation from God. But you are on the same track as the Catholic Thinking about this from the Catachism.
So we are generally in agreement with this. However, because of this the Catholic church goes on to say.

When the Apostle John passed away, the canon of the Bible closed at that very moment! NO more forthcoming doctrines"traditions" from God, as ALL that God had to reveal to us for all times was done with Apostle John!

And "traditions" in the Bible meant either OT scriptures, or else the prophetic words or writtings from the Apostles themselves! ALL under the inspiration of God!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When the Apostle John passed away, the canon of the Bible closed at that very moment!

Just because no other book was writen after Revelation doesn't mean canon was decided at that point. Show me the document that shows canon was decided at the completion of the book of revelation. Canon wasn't established at that point! Dr. Baker puts it this way

The New Testament was NOT dropped from heaven.
The New Testament was NOT delivered by an angel.
The New Testament was NOT found in a farmer’s field like the Book of Mormon.
The New Testament was NOT suddenly “discovered” in a clay jar with 27 “books” intact
like the Dea Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts.
3
The New Testament canon developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history. If the New Testament had been delivered by an angel, or unearthed as a complete unit it would not be as believable. Part of the historical validity of the New Testament comes from the fact that we can trace its development. The fact that this development is not as precise nor as clean as we might like makes it far more historically reliable

Note that

Oral tradition was the normal mode for communicating the teachings of a master in the ancient world.

Also note

The earliest non-New Testament Christian documents (Barnabas, 1 Clement, and The Shepherd of Hermas) cite the Old Testament as “scripture” and only make allusions to New Testament texts. Ignatius of Antioch (107-120 AD) is full of allusions to, and paraphrases of, New Testament texts, but it is only when we come to the second century
apologists that verified quotations from what we now call New Testament texts begin to be common.

Also note

The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD.

Therefore

The particular writings that became those of the New
Testament gradually came into focus and became the most trusted and beneficial of all the early Christian writings.

because

The New Testament developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history.

Study some christian history and find out for yourself.

NO more forthcoming doctrines"traditions" from God, as ALL that God had to reveal to us for all times was done with Apostle John!

I must be talking to a wall because didn't I say

exactly as the catachism says

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I must then be speaking to someone who doesn't listen at all.

And "traditions" in the Bible meant either OT scriptures, or else the prophetic words or writtings from the Apostles themselves! ALL under the inspiration of God!

It is clear that traditions were also those things verbally spoken by the apostles themselves as can be seen in writen scripture.

They were inspired truths (which is a revelation from God. But you are on the same track as the Catholic Thinking about this from the Catachism.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

 

[Yeshua1]

Just because no other book was writen after Revelation doesn't mean canon was decided at that point. Show me the document that shows canon was decided at the completion of the book of revelation. Canon wasn't established at that point! Dr. Baker puts it this way Note that Also note Also note Therefore because Study some christian history and find out for yourself.


I must be talking to a wall because didn't I say
I must then be speaking to someone who doesn't listen at all.

It is clear that traditions were also those things verbally spoken by the apostles themselves as can be seen in writen scripture.

From Gods point of view, both ALL doctrines/practices AND the canon were BOTH finished as completed when John wrote revelation and passed away!

 

[Wittenberger]

From Gods point of view, both ALL doctrines/practices AND the canon were BOTH finished as completed when John wrote revelation and passed away!

Please give historical evidence that the canon of the Bible was completed when John finished the Book of Revelation.

 

[Moriah]

Please give historical evidence that the canon of the Bible was completed when John finished the Book of Revelation.

You cannot add to the scriptures in the Bible that should show you it is closed.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Interesting. My initial statement was...



Next…



With which I followed up…



Your retort?



So on the one hand you state explicitly of my statement: “The Roman Catholic Church CREATED the university system, and the scientific method” to be the “…absolute ludicrousness of what you are feebly attempting to maintain.” While on the other hand, you now state:



Wow – you are one conflicted individual.

WM

If that's the way you see it, God bless you.

 

[WestminsterMan]

If that's the way you see it, God bless you.

Well, can you clarify the dichotomy? I find you to be intellectually honest... A rare quality around here. I 'm not trying to insult you... Only get at your position. I have enjoyed our discussions. Please do not take offense.

WM

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, can you clarify the dichotomy? I find you to be intellectually honest... A rare quality around here. I 'm not trying to insult you... Only get at your position. I have enjoyed our discussions. Please do not take offense.

WM

Thank you for the compliment. I also have enjoyed our discussions. I didn't take offense at what you said; I just didn't want to continue to sound so strident. I recognize that sometimes I say more than I intended.

Now to the point at hand. I was agreeing that the RCC had a tremendous influence on Western civilization (good and bad, btw); I disagreed that they created the scientific method.

I'll be the first to admit that I have been conflicted about some things --mostly infant baptism, years ago. I also had a struggle trying to determine which denomination I might fit into. It has been the case that I have agreed with a lot of what a particular denomination taught -- except the one thing which was the reason for that denomination's existence, such as the Church of the Nazarene's doctrine of entire sanctification, or the Pentecostals' definition of the Holy Spirit baptism and tongues. That's why years ago I realized I needed a denomination with the widest possible variety of beliefs, which led me to the Episcopal Church, at the time.

Well, you got me to rambling; it's entirely your fault.

Let's keep conversing. I'll try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum. I'm sure you can see that I could not be a Nazarene, as I have a long way to go toward entire sanctification.

I get passionate about things because I am convinced about some doctrines, and I had a difficult time getting there, but I also realize that we all see through a glass, darkly. That's why I am slow to use some words that many here don't seem to mind using. Plus, it's not pleasant to be called some of these things for having an opinion. Further, the definition of a particular word often depends on who is using it.

I look forward to our continued discussions, and disagreements. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

Please give historical evidence that the canon of the Bible was completed when John finished the Book of Revelation.

The Jews had already canonized the Old Testament. They rejected the Old Testament apocrapha. The Scriptures were committed to the Jews as the custodian.

The New Testament canon was completed as Tertullian clearly and explicitly calls it "the whole volume" and says that they received it "from the beginning" and explicitly states that "we" cannot add or subtract from it. Indeed, this is the precise charge he brings against Marcion who both added and subtracted from "the whole volume."

Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to claim "the whole volume" was not "whole" simply because Tertullian himself does not quote from every single New Testament book and then assume on the basis of silence what he says is "the WHOLE volume" could not have been "whole."

What New Testament books he does not quote other writers previous to him do refer to (Iraeneus, Apotolic Fathers, Justin Martyr) and Tertullian when speaking of "the whole volume" received "from the beginning" uses the first person plural "we" speaking of what he considered the Christian community in contrast to heretics as Marcion.

Furthermore, Isaiah 8:16-20 is a very precise prediction that the whole canon of scripture would be completed among the apostles. Isaiah 8:16 is the precise prediction of the canon being finished and Isaiah 8:16,18 has for its ultimate fulfillment Jesus Christ and his apostles as can clearly seen by its quotation in Hebrews 2:3-4,12. Christ's prediction that the Holy Spirit would lead his apostles (contextual subjects directly addressed in John 14-17) into "all truth" and it is through their words future generations would be brought to the truth (Jn. 17:21). The Apostles themselves were aware of this very mission and regarded their own writings and of other apostles as "scriptures" (2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-17; 2 Thes. 2:15; etc.). John uses the very term "testimony" as Isaiah 8:16 in the concluding letter (Rev. 1:2) and then closes his letter by sealing it as Isaiah 8:16 predicts (Rev. 22:17-18).

Most interesting is that after Isaiah predicts the completion of the Biblical canon by the apostles ("my disciples") the next revelation from God he anticipates is the revelation of the Incarnate Word from heaven (Isa. 8:17-18) precisely as does John after sealing the final apostolic letter (Rev. 22:19-20).

Finally, even Rome does not pretend to believe that after the last living apostle wrote the book of Revelation that any other book has been added to the canon of scripture. There is a good reason for this and that is the fact that the scriptures provide several tests of a prophet and none since the last apostle John have been able to pass those tests and it has been over 1900 years.

Now, I am not so delusional to believe that you or any other Catholic will accept these Biblical or historical evidences. However, for Bible believers these evidences are more than sufficient to deny Rome's claims.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Quakers had a good point that the Holy Spirit is the primary authority -- the Holy Spirit which inspired the scriptures and influences tradition, reason, and experience. However, the orthodox Quakers soon saw how that position could be dangerous. So, they were quick to add that if any leading or purported revelation of the Spirit did not line up with scripture, such leading or revelation was to be considered false.

If people don't accept the scriptures as the final written authority, what do they propose to put in its place? The Catholics put tradition there and run into many errors, false doctrines, and man-made additions to the Gospel of the NT; the Socinians enthrone reason and are thereby led to discard the supernatural aspects of the Gospel, such as the miracles and healings and are influenced to undervalue who Jesus was; those who enthrone experience are led into multiple errors and additions to scripture, often elevating themselves to the status of near-apostles in what they claim!

No, to stay anchored in the Gospel of the NT, the scriptures must be considered the final authority. Due to the human condition, there are bound to be differing and competing interpretations, but this is much more preferable than the alternatives that I mentioned above, as these lead to manifold errors, corruptions, and additions to the NT Gospel. Sure, study the fathers; I value especially the early Greek fathers, but don't get your doctrine from them -- unless it is confirmed by the NT.

Also, as I have shown and some have denied, there are only about eight denominational families, so there is not nearly as much fragmentation in the Body of Christ as some would have you believe. If you do swallow that gross exaggeration of the facts, you are playing right into the hands of the ecumenists and Roman Catholics. For instance, there are a great variety of Baptists, but they all share some basic core beliefs, doctrines, polity, and practice -- even those as divergent as the Calvinist and Arminian Baptists.

Bottom line: Scripture is and must be the final authority; these are the words of the apostles, the ones closest to the Source of our faith -- Jesus Christ. If not the scriptures, then what? The alternatives are disastrous for those seeking to find and follow apostolic, NT Christianity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

From Gods point of view, both ALL doctrines/practices AND the canon were BOTH finished as completed when John wrote revelation and passed away!

So you fall back to ignore actual facts and in "God's point of view". Which strangely enough equates to your point of view. If we are going on such a premise why not say "In God's point of view the NT canon was decided before the earth began." ? No because that wouldn't align with what you want to believe and also its a dangerous premise to equate God's design with your own thinking.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You cannot add to the scriptures in the Bible that should show you it is closed.

Moriah, let me have a little fun with you. Where in the bible does it say you can't add to the current selected texts or books of scripture? How about no where. Everyone quotes the book of revelation to say you can't add to the any more books to scripture but thats due to a misreading of that passage. Look at what it actually says.

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy

which was a comon verbage for apocalyptic literature. But note it doesn't say for the current books of the bible but specifically to the words of the prophesy of the book of revelation. How about Deut 12:32?

“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it

which speaks specifically to the law. Which was long before the other OT books and certainly from the NT books and it doesn't give a list of which books its speaking about because it is directed to the law of God. How about proverbs 30:35-36?

Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar

Note is says God's word every one should be followed however note how it doesn't list which books are the word of God. Which brings me to my next question to you Moriah, How do you know you have all the words of God? There is no scripture that list the table of contents for all the words of God. So who do you now you have the right set? Certainly the bible alone doesn't tell you it. No you come by that knowledge by faith in your tradition that these are the set of books and no more are scritpure. And the Catholic Church has long since established canon.

 

[The Biblicist]

So you fall back to ignore actual facts and in "God's point of view". Which strangely enough equates to your point of view. If we are going on such a premise why not say "In God's point of view the NT canon was decided before the earth began." ? No because that wouldn't align with what you want to believe and also its a dangerous premise to equate God's design with your own thinking.

Can you find ANYONE after the apostle John died who is capable of passing all the Biblical tests for a prophet?

Written scripture is given ONLY through such prophets. Since for the past 1900 years none have been able to pass those tests (and there are at least five Bibical tests) then from God's point of view (He is the One who set forth such tests) the scriptural canon was concluded with John.

Moreover, John does something no other writer of scriptures does. He seals his book (and his book covers the time period from his present moment until the new heavens and earth) and then predicts the next revelation that we can expect from heaven to be the revelation of Christ (Rev. 22:19-20). This not only perfectly agrees with Isaiah 8:16 prediction of the completion of the Biblical canon among the disciples of Christ (Isa. 8:16-18) but agrees with Isaiahs prophecy that the next revelation AFTER sealing the canon is Christ coming from heaven (Isa. 8:17-18).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Can you find ANYONE after the apostle John died who is capable of passing all the Biblical tests for a prophet?

LOL. Are you denying what scripture say:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,until we all attain to the unity of the faith

Is your contention that God wouldn't give us prophets after John? Until we reach the unity of faith it says and we see there currently is no unity of faith. Everybody has their pet doctrine.

Written scripture is given ONLY through such prophets.

Prophetness doesn't determine scripture because not one prophet has given us a table of contents. How do we know the writer of Hebrews meets all the test of a prophet since it may not have been Paul who wrote the book?

Moreover, John does something no other writer of scriptures does. He seals his book (and his book covers the time period from his present moment until the new heavens and earth) and then predicts the next revelation that we can expect from heaven to be the revelation of Christ (Rev. 22:19-20).

This isn't true other writers have sealed Apocalyptic literature with similar refrain to "seal their books". All you have to do is look at Jewish apocalyptic literature.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL. Are you denying what scripture say:

I am denying YOUR interpretation of scripture.

Is your contention that God wouldn't give us prophets after John? Until we reach the unity of faith it says and we see there currently is no unity of faith. Everybody has their pet doctrine.

You are misinterpreting that scripture. He is speaking of a PRESENT DESIGN reality with a PRESENT consequence not of some future state of perfection. The stated purpose is that PRESENTLY they will not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine not they will reach the state of sinless perfection at some distant future date.

Prophetness doesn't determine scripture because not one prophet has given us a table of contents.

I understand what you are attempting to say. You mean to say that prophetness does not determine when and how the scriptures will be completed as they did not provide a list of objectives to be completed.

Prophetness does determine scripture as scripture is only supplied by prophets and without prophets no scripture is supplied at all.

Isaiah 8:16-20 does supply a termination point and the John's book does meet that predicted termination point.

How do we know the writer of Hebrews meets all the test of a prophet since it may not have been Paul who wrote the book?

.


The scriptures provide the clear guideliness to test any writing as to its authenticity.

1. No scripture teaches doctrine contrary to formerly authenticated scriptures - Deu. 13:1-5; Isa. 8:20

2. All predictive elements must come to pass as predicted - Deut. 18:18-20

3. All scripture must be true in regard to its content as scripture originates from "The Spirit of Truth" - Jn. 16:14

4. All writings confirmed as scripture by other authenticated prophets and/or the professing people of God - 1 Jn. 4:1,6; 2 Pet. 3:15-17.

Peter writes to the Jewish Christian dispersion and claims that Paul had written a very complicated epistle unto them that dealt with the doctrine of salvation (Heb. 2:1-2). The concluding remarks of hebrews proves internally it was connected with Paul's immediate associates.

This isn't true other writers have sealed Apocalyptic literature with similar refrain to "seal their books". All you have to do is look at Jewish apocalyptic literature.

You did not carefully read what I said. I did not merely state that John sealed his book BUT that his book dealt with the time from his present day until the ushering in of the new heaven and earth AND then closed with the next anticipated revelation from heaven to be Christ. Moreover, John identified his final book as "the testimony" (Rev. 1:1-3) the very precise term used by Isaiah 8:16 in connection with the predicted work of "my disciples" of Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am denying YOUR interpretation of scripture.





You are misinterpreting that scripture. He is speaking of a PRESENT DESIGN reality with a PRESENT consequence not of some future state of perfection. The stated purpose is that PRESENTLY they will not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine not they will reach the state of sinless perfection at some distant future date.

Prophetness doesn't determine scripture because not one prophet has given us a table of contents.

I understand what you are attempting to say. You mean to say that prophetness does not determine when and how the scriptures will be completed as they did not provide a list of objectives to be completed.

Prophetness does determine scripture as scripture is only supplied by prophets and without prophets no scripture is supplied at all.

Isaiah 8:16-20 does supply a termination point and the John's book does meet that predicted termination point.



.


The scriptures provide the clear guideliness to test any writing as to its authenticity.

1. No scripture teaches doctrine contrary to formerly authenticated scriptures - Deu. 13:1-5; Isa. 8:20

2. All predictive elements must come to pass as predicted - Deut. 18:18-20

3. All scripture must be true in regard to its content as scripture originates from "The Spirit of Truth" - Jn. 16:14

4. All writings confirmed as scripture by other authenticated prophets and/or the professing people of God - 1 Jn. 4:1,6; 2 Pet. 3:15-17.

Peter writes to the Jewish Christian dispersion and claims that Paul had written a very complicated epistle unto them that dealt with the doctrine of salvation (Heb. 2:1-2). The concluding remarks of hebrews proves internally it was connected with Paul's immediate associates.




You did not carefully read what I said. I did not merely state that John sealed his book BUT that his book dealt with the time from his present day until the ushering in of the new heaven and earth AND then closed with the next anticipated revelation from heaven to be Christ. Moreover, John identified his final book as "the testimony" (Rev. 1:1-3) the very precise term used by Isaiah 8:16 in connection with the predicted work of "my disciples" of Christ.

the SURE revelation of Christ is found in the ONLY inspited revelation from God, the Bible!

the Holy Spirit ALONE is the great and infallible interpretor of the doctrines of the faith, as he authore them to us in the bible, Rome claims she alone has the authorityto reveal the faith, taking over the place of the Spirit!

can ANY assume from Him his role as the infallible interpretator of sacred texts?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am denying YOUR interpretation of scripture.

At least thats an honest answer. I deny yours. Now where does that leave us? Nowhere because you have no authority to apeal to to say your interpretation is superior to mine. All you can do is to attempt to make a case for it as I can attempt to make a case for mine. I have no authority that you recognize to appeal to and thus here we are we disagree. No unity. Which proves my point.

You are misinterpreting that scripture. He is speaking of a PRESENT DESIGN reality with a PRESENT consequence not of some future state of perfection.

Yes he's speaking of a present design and a continual design as well and finally a continuing design lasting for all the ages of the Church. I wasn't indicating just a future mode. However, even from the first days there was hardly unity as many grumblers grumbled and attempted to change Apostolic Doctrine which is why the apostolic letters were written.

I understand what you are attempting to say. You mean to say that prophetness does not determine when and how the scriptures will be completed as they did not provide a list of objectives to be completed.

Yes thank you for clearing that up.

Prophetness does determine scripture as scripture is only supplied by prophets and without prophets no scripture is supplied at all.

I wonder if Judges 1&2nd Kings or 1&2nd Chronicles were written by prophets or the book of Esther. They are undoubtedly inspired text but is inspiration your only test of being a prophet? You gave 5 test. How do you know that these writers meet all these tests?

Isaiah 8:16-20 does supply a termination point and the John's book does meet that predicted termination point.

This is interesting because note Isaiah when speaking of the testimony is speaking about the oral proclimation of God's disciples. Not the written word. I find that telling.

The scriptures provide the clear guideliness to test any writing as to its authenticity.

Lets look at your test each point at a time.

1. No scripture teaches doctrine contrary to formerly authenticated scriptures - Deu. 13:1-5; Isa. 8:20

Both deal with Oral proclimations not written word. And Deut specifically deals with determining whether a foretelling of an event of a Prophet can be trusted by whether or not it comes to pass.

2. All predictive elements must come to pass as predicted - Deut. 18:18-20

Yes but once again an oral proclimation not the written word.

3. All scripture must be true in regard to its content as scripture originates from "The Spirit of Truth" - Jn. 16:14

again an oral proclimation not about the written word. Yes the oral teachings given by the Spirit glorify Jesus and make Jesus teaching available to the hearer.

4. All writings confirmed as scripture by other authenticated prophets and/or the professing people of God - 1 Jn. 4:1,6; 2 Pet. 3:15-17

Just a note so not only prophets write the word but proffessing people of God as well. So the whole question to the "prophetness" is laid to rest.

Peter writes to the Jewish Christian dispersion and claims that Paul had written a very complicated epistle unto them that dealt with the doctrine of salvation (Heb. 2:1-2).

Yes he did and he said it was hard to understand and easy to pervert which people did and continue to do btw.

The concluding remarks of hebrews proves internally it was connected with Paul's immediate associates.

what can we tell about them apart from their association with Paul certainly that didn't necissarily have to be prophets. What other test can we run on them? They could have been full of Bunk since we really don't know about them how do you run your tests on them. Not that a single verse has said anything about the written word of God but only the spoken word of God which supports my analysis that in the ancient world Oral tradition was the normal way of passing on information and the written text was evaluated for accuracy from the oral teachings not the other way around.

You did not carefully read what I said. I did not merely state that John sealed his book BUT that his book dealt with the time from his present day until the ushering in of the new heaven and earth AND then closed with the next anticipated revelation from heaven to be Christ. Moreover, John identified his final book as "the testimony" (Rev. 1:1-3) the very precise term used by Isaiah 8:16 in connection with the predicted work of "my disciples" of Christ.

First of all Isaiah 8:16 isn't what you think it is because it mentions the oral proclimation. Next no one is particularily sure who wrote Revelation John the Apostle or John the Revelator? Next John isn't speaking to other text but soley his own. And the fact that he speaking about Jesus' 2nd Advent is not a good point for your position because you hold that Daniel does that as well? Should Daniel be the final book?

 

[DHK]

None the less... the scientific method came from the university system created by the RCC. Taking it a little further, the Catholic Church pretty much created Western Civilization.

WM

I tell you what. You present some of your evidence, and I'll shoot it down some time later. I am fairly busy most of today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I tell you what. You present some of your evidence, and I'll shoot it down some time later. I am fairly busy most of today.

Honestly DHK I want to see you shoot it down. This should be fun. After all Aristotle started the process by observation of the natural world, muslims continued to develop it that observation, and Roger Bacon (a Catholic) started its promotion in the west (ie Europe) having been influenced by the scholastic tradition of the Roman Catholic University system which was started by Charlemagne. The men of The Rennisance based all their methods on Roger Bacon who was taught Aristotle and other thinkers because the Catholic Church and Monestaries maintained those documents for him to Study. Many consider him to be the for runner of the modern Scientific method. By Dr. Thomas Woods

"Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who taught at Oxford, was admired for his work in
mathematics and optics, and is considered to be a forerunner of modern scientific
method."
"Like Roger Bacon, Saint Albert [the Great] was careful to note the importance of
direct observation in the acquisition of knowledge about the physical world. In De
Mineralibus, he explained that the aim of natural science was 'not simply to accept the
statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people, but to investigate the causes
that are at work in nature for themselves.'"