Log Summary

James White Admits a Contradiction

skyman Admits to Error

(And skyman accuses Scott of dishonesty and
grants this may be posted on Scott's website - so here it is).

This is the logfile from #prosapologian on July 30, 2001
The evening before, James White had declared St. Augustine's Sermon 131 was written in 416, before Zosimus became Pope, today he admits he uses two different dates, 417 and 416, in his own article - skyman confirms it was 417 (the year I said on July 29th).

Skyman, on the 29th, when challenged to produce something written by St. Augustine BETWEEN the time of Sermon 131 and Pope Zosimus' reversal on Pelagius and Celestius on the subject of Pelagius and Celestius, presented the letter: Postquam a Nobis - today he admits that was written by Zosimus, NOT Augustine.

Several attempts at distraction from these facts are made, plus several "put-downs"

*** Log file opened: 07/29/2001 8:11:26 PM
[20:11] BigScott has joined #prosapologian
[20:11] <^Julianna> bummer
[20:12] <James White> #cathapol was an interesting place today, Scott.
[20:12] <BroBret> agreed Nina
[20:12] <Nina^`^> thanks mon:)

[20:12] <Scott Windsor> How so James?
[20:12] <mon-works> I don't think so, though, Nina :)
[20:12] <pascoe> ^Julianna: it was an ornery horse, and he was trying to "teach" it to submit. apparently it wasn't interested. it also threw his daughter off the same day, but she wasn't injured. (it's her horse).

[20:12] <James White> No ops, and thinker running amuck.
[20:13] <tatrbrain> thinker was calling Dr White names
[20:13] <SAMpagita> pascoe, got to take the horse down and show them who's boss!
[20:13] <Scott Windsor> thinker doesn't like White at all... but I don't approve of namecalling
[20:13] <^Julianna> Passcoe. my horse is wonderful I have had him since he was a baby ;)
[20:13] <pascoe> SAMpagita: I understand the horse is experiencing some form of discipline as we speak. 8)

[20:13] <tatrbrain> well he used four letter words
[20:13] <SAMpagita> :o) lol
[20:14] <tatrbrain> I was quite upset about it
[20:14] <Scott Windsor> four letter words?
[20:14] <Nina^`^> mon / but one has to think of altar calls as never being part of the church til these last centuries
[20:14] <tatrbrain> yes
[20:14] <James White> Is thinker an RC, Scott....I mean a real one?
[20:14] TroothSeek [blahheem@1Cust77.tnt2.covington.la.da.uu.net] has quit IRC (Ping timeout for TroothSeek[1Cust77.tnt2.covington.la.da.uu.net])
[20:14] TruthSeeke [blahheem@1Cust198.tnt4.new-orleans.la.da.uu.net] has joined #prosapologian
[20:14] <TruthSeeke> sorry
[20:14] <BroBret> well people won't like us when we proclaim the truth, because ultimately it is Jesus they have a problem with
[20:14] <mon-works> Oh, I agree, Nina....but the "Altar" in the OT was quite a different thing, is my point
[20:14] <Stoker> Pastor Don Fry's sermon this morning on the sixth commandment can now be heard at www.prbc.org. His evening sermon on the pride of Hezekiah will be available later tonight, along with a special sermon by Cue-ball himself, "Why I Am a Reformed Baptist."
[20:14] <pascoe> ^Julianna: what kind of horse?

[20:14] <proorizo> alter, oh thats 5 letters, sorry
[20:14] <James White> Even Mindy told thinker to cool it, Scott. :-)
[20:14] <TruthSeeke> got bumped
[20:15] <Stoker> I'm out of here!
[20:15] <James White> Stoker, cool.

[20:15] <Scott Windsor> James... I have not gotten the full scoop on thinker...
[20:15] <James White> Go home!
[20:15] <James White> :-)
[20:15] <mon-works> I think they're unBiblical, though, just to clarify, Nina :)
[20:15] Stoker [Stoker@ACB7DB1A.ipt.aol.com] has quit IRC ()

[20:15] <James White> I don't think any of us have, actually.
[20:15] <James White> Is it your understanding that thinker is a woman?
[20:15] <mon-works> he/she/it
[20:15] <Nina^`^> mon...but my point was in displeasing God ...not meaning sacrifical system
[20:15] <SAMpagita> pascoe, my pastor has a stallion and has told stories of him "taking him down"...funny! But now that horse knows who is boss and doesn't give him any greif now

[20:15] <Scott Windsor> that was my impression... but someone else said thinker is male...
[20:16] <^Julianna> Arabian
[20:16] <TruthSeeke> I just don't understand why we have to bang those who have not yet read down the page...
[20:16] <^Julianna> Pascoe: Arabian

[20:16] <James White> I can't get a straight answer out of that person for anything, so who knows?
[20:16] <James White> Very annoying.
[20:17] <TruthSeeke> like the whole calvin v/s armeninen(sp?)
[20:17] <Scott Windsor> James, do you still stand on your statement that Sermon 131 was written in 416? (and I agree on thinker, not sure how to take him/her)
[20:17] <pascoe> SAMpagita: there are two schools of thought on horse training. one is to make the horse submit, the other is to win the trust of the horse thru social signals. I personally suspect it depends on the horse tho. 8)
[20:17] tatrbrain is now known as tatraway
[20:17] <TruthSeeke> Pascoe: I agree with that statement
[20:17] tatrbrain has left IRC
[20:17] Nina^`^ is now known as NinaBBIAB
[20:17] <TruthSeeke> depends on the horse
[20:18] <James White> Actually, Scott, skyman and I are discussing that right now.
[20:18] <Scott Windsor> after all the belittleing I took last night, I have found you to have contradicted yourself on that date...
[20:18] <SAMpagita> hey, don't ask me...I just think horsed are pretty! :o) Funny thing though, whenever I went to ride a horse, I always got matched with the feisty, stubborn ones as a joke...they said they try to match the rider's personality with the horse....great!
[20:18] <SAMpagita> horsed - horses

[20:18] <James White> No, some sources say 417.
[20:19] <Scott Windsor> in your article you cite September of 417
[20:19] <James White> All of them I can see say September; some don't even give a date.

[20:19] <pascoe> ^Julianna: my parents have raised some thoroughbred horses for a few years now. it is fun to see little ponies running around in the pasture. they are lots of work tho.
[20:19] <James White> No, 416.
[20:19] <TruthSeeke> can some one explain that to me?
[20:19] <James White> Some sources say 417./
[20:19] <Scott Windsor> then later in the same article you (alone, no citation) said 416.
[20:19] <James White> Right/
[20:19] <James White> Skyman pointed that out to me today. I've tried to track down all my sources, but to be honest, I can't read all of them right now.

James admits to having contradictory dates in his own article.

[20:20] <James White> Not time wise, just ability wise.
[20:20] <Scott Windsor> understood...

[20:20] <James White> I can't read small print at the moment. :-(
[20:20] <Scott Windsor> oh... eye trouble? :-(
[20:20] <TruthSeeke> the whole calvinisim v/s armenisism (sp?) debate
[20:20] <pascoe> Cue-works: you must have a large font for your IRC client. 8)
[20:20] <James White> That's the nice thing about computer screens....I can make fonts bigger. :-)
[20:20] <James White> Yeah, had eye surgery a few weeks ago.
[20:20] <Scott Windsor> hope it's going well...
[20:20] <SAMpagita> being a shiner-head affecting your eyesight? ;O)
[20:20] <James White> The results have been....uh.....less than spectacular.
[20:20] <TruthSeeke> does it really matter in the scheme of eternity?

[20:21] <Scott Windsor> you cited Merdinger in your article... with 417
[20:21] <James White> Yes. I was just discussing that with sky.

James confirms my clarification that he himself cited the date to be 417.

[20:21] <pascoe> Cue-works: can they schedule a second surgery right away, or do they need to wait for a certain time?
[20:21] <Scott Windsor> which only makes sense anyway... why would Augustine have been objecting in 416, to Innocent, when he AGREED with Innocent?
[20:21] <James White> pascoe: No, the sight has to stabilize.
[20:21] <TruthSeeke> brb
[20:21] <James White> They can't correct it till they know what it has settled down to.
[20:21] <pascoe> Cue-works: I kinda suspected they would say that.

[20:22] <skyman> BigScott, I do believe you are right that the sermon was preached in sept of 417 & Zosimus was pope...

skyman agrees with me (contradicting what both skyman and James stated emphatically the day before) that the date of Sermon 131 was September of 417.

<skyman continues> But Augustine was referencing Innocent's decision in Sermon 131. Moreover in 418 Augustine called for a council, which decreed by canon law to forbid priests to makes oversea appeals to Rome.

First off, where do we get any information that Sermon 131.10 is referencing Innocent I's decision? Which decision? Innocent I AGREED with the North African bishops! Then, to bring up a council in 418, even if St. Augustine called the council, is nothing more than a diversion attempt - it's completely off the subject of Sermon 131, Pope Zosimus and the "roma locuta" discussion. So, he concedes he and James were wrong the day before, but attempts to say, without support, that Sermon 131 had nothing to do with the letters Zosimus wrote to the North Africans. The objective reader here will see that after two scathing letters from the Pope to St. Augustine and the North Africans, the "error" that St. Augustine refers to in 131.10 clearly refers to Zosimus' position on Pelagius and Celestius.

[20:22] <Scott Windsor> thank you sky... and the events of 418 are a different subject
[20:22] <skyman> I have the particular canon handy.
[20:22] <skyman> Not really
[20:22] <pascoe> Cue-works: they made my mom wait about two months, I think.
[20:22] <James White> The "rescripts" to which Augustine refers have to refer to the response of Innocent in January of 417.

James provides no evidence to support this assertion that the "rescripts" (response from Rome) refer to the response of Innocent in January. Again I assert, St. Augustine AGREED with Innocent I, whereas this section of Sermon 131.10, he submits to the decision of the Apostolic See, and reiterates the fact that PelagianISM is still an error and hopes/wishes it would end soon as well. Did St. Augustine believe Pope Innocent I was in error? No, so clearly he wasn't "responding" to Innocent I, rather he was responding to Zosimus and refering to the error of PelagianISM.

[20:23] <TruthSeeke> 'k
[20:23] <TruthSeeke> I'm back
[20:23] <^Julianna> Pascoe: yeah, they are quite a bit of work. I was lucky Wes and I hit it off right away
[20:23] <BroBret> goodnight all

[20:23] <Scott Windsor> sky, I agree... tangentially related
[20:23] <James White> Hence, his reference in Sermon 131 is to the two North African Councils that condemned Pelagianism: they sent their conclusions to Rome, inviting Rome to join the condemnation. This Innocent did shortly before he di(e)d, January 417.

[20:23] <^Julianna> Pascoe: believe it or not He actually get's jelous at times
[20:23] <skyman> Yes
[20:24] <^Julianna> nite brobret
[20:24] BroBret [Lovitz5@AC8F87BB.ipt.aol.com] has left #prosapologian
[20:24] <pascoe> ^Julianna: I can believe that.
[20:24] <James White> You remain in error, however, in your main assertion, Scott, that being that there is something in Sermon 131 indicating that Augustine *disagreed* with what Rome said.

I here now retract that "St. Augustine believed Rome was in error" - he did not, he was refering to the error of PelagianISM.

[20:24] <Blondy> did stoke go home?
[20:24] <James White> Yes,she did.
[20:24] <James White> Finally.
[20:24] <James White> :-)
[20:24] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J.: This teaching [of Pelagius] was condemned by two North African councils in Carthage and Mileve in 416. But since Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement, it seemed appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision.
[20:24] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J., Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, trans. John A. Otto and Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 34.

[20:24] TruthSeeke [blahheem@1Cust198.tnt4.new-orleans.la.da.uu.net] has quit IRC ()
[20:24] <Blondy> heehee dad
[20:24] <Blondy> thats good...i gues....;o)
[20:24] <skyman> That's why the African councils sent word to Rome.
[20:25] <skyman> as the Jesuit above points out
[20:25] <^Julianna> Pascoe: He will not really let a lot of people near Him unless I am there. That is good and bad. Mainly bad I think though, that is one reason why he would never be a good show horse
[20:25] <James White> At least, I THINK that is what you were saying last night: that Augustine was saying that while two North African Councils had spoken, now that Zosimus had contravened them, "the case is closed." I do not know of single person, Protestant or Roman Catholic, who believes that to be the case.

James says this, then immediately skyman presents a source contradicting White.

[20:25] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J.: The saying of Bishop Augustine of Hippo (396-430), Roma locuta, causa finita (Rome has spoken, the matter is settled) was quoted repeatedly. However, the quotation is really a bold reshaping of the words of that Church Father taken quite out of context.
[20:25] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J., Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, trans. John A. Otto and Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 34.
[20:26] <James White> Well, aside from you, anyway. :-)
[20:26] <Scott Windsor> um.... what we the two letters that Zosimus wrote? Was not Augustine objecting to those two letters? (one, last night sky claimed Augustine wrote) [Magnum Pondus and Postquam a Nobis]
[20:26] <pascoe> ^Julianna: was that your intent, to own a show horse?
[20:26] <James White> Well, let me ask you, Scott....what is the connection between the councils and the responses noted in the same sentence?
[20:27] <James White> Do you have the latin there, sky?
[20:27] <Scott Windsor> how about answering my question first?
[20:27] <James White> I'm helping you to see the error of your question, Scott. :-)
[20:27] <skyman> Augustine & the Africans in general objected to the letters of Zosimus, and that's one reason why Augustine called for the Council of 418.

skyman clarifies my position!

[20:27] <^Julianna> Pascoe: no, but I have done a lot of show riding. But I bought Him simply to be my friend ;)
[20:27] <skyman> The Latin of the sermon?
[20:27] <James White> I've got it, hold on.
[20:28] <skyman> We learn, then, that the African Church was determined to defend its jurisdictional autonomy. This doesn’t support the modern Roman contention that Augustine’s ‘causa finita est’ was a reference to the ultimate authority of the Roman bishop for the adjudication of the Pelagian controversy.
[20:28] <skyman> Pope Innocent I had condemned the heresy, but the next pope Zosimus reopened the case, and sanctioned it until he realized that the African Church was not going to submit.
[20:28] <James White> Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.
[20:28] <skyman> If the Pelagian controversy was ‘infallibly’ and effectively brought to a halt by Innocent I, how was it reopened and the heresy temporarily sanctioned by the next pope Zosimus?

I got tied up in what White was saying and did not respond to skyman, so will do so now. Zosimus did not "reopen" the heresy, nor did he "accept" the heresy. What Zosimus did was accept Pelagius and Celestius based on a false confession from them. Zosimus was NOT accepting the heresy, he was accepting the persons.

[20:29] <James White> What does "rescripta" mean to you, Scott?
[20:29] <Scott Windsor> rescripta = rescripts... writings...
[20:29] <skyman> or reports
[20:29] <Blondy> rescripta...rescripta....having something to do with scripts? writings?
[20:29] <Blondy> copies of writings?
[20:29] <Scott Windsor> could be reports...
[20:29] <Blondy> am i even close....? :)
[20:30] <James White> And are these connected at all to the sending of the two councils?
[20:30] <skyman> rescripta means reply, as in writing back
[20:30] <Scott Windsor> the rescripts are in response to the two councils
[20:30] <Blondy> well, for not knowing latin, i was close, right?
[20:30] <Blondy> kinda...
[20:30] <Blondy> :)
[20:30] <James White> And who wrote responses to the councils specifically to the North Africans in January of 417?
[20:31] <Scott Windsor> January? where does that date come from?
[20:31] <Brando> ah
[20:31] <Brando> Cue
[20:31] <James White> Merdinger.
[20:31] <James White> I think sky cited it above....not sure.

(He didn't)

[20:31] <skyman> Merdinger & Klaus Schatz both note in respect to this that the African Churches were determined to defend their autonomy.
[20:32] <James White> You see, Scott, you are turning the closing of the sermon upside down. I honestly think if you look at Merdinger or any other *Roman Catholic* source, you will see that *none* of them interpret the passage the way you do, since it would involve Augustine saying the following:
[20:32] <skyman> BisScott, Jan. of 417 is when Innocent affirmed Pelagian Doctrine to be heresy, he then died in Mar of 417.
[20:32] <James White> "For already on this matter two councils have sent to the apostolic see; and while three letters have come back supporting us, now two have come back against us; the case is closed, would that the error would come to an end as well....."
[20:33] <James White> Blondy: Yes, you were close.
[20:33] <Blondy> thanks dad! :)
[20:33] <Blondy> i guess you can be blonde and smart
[20:33] <Blondy> :)))
[20:33] <SAMpagita> cute :o)
[20:33] <James White> Or brunette and self-deceived.
[20:33] <Scott Windsor> Cue?
[20:33] <Blondy> hee hee ha ha ho ho
[20:33] <James White> Yes?
[20:33] <James White> Did I over run the buffer?
[20:34] <Scott Windsor> I'm not sure what you're trying to say... you're adding to the words....
[20:34] <James White> I'm pointing out what you are trying to make it say. Everyone I know of, Protestant or Catholic, says the "rescripta" = Innocent's replies (three letters total) in January of 417.
[20:34] <skyman> When Augustine preached sermon 131 & said the matter was finished (as far as the Africans were concerned), the heresy was alive under pope Zosimus. So it had not been effectively adjudicated by Rome.

Regarding the matter being finished, as far as the African's were concerned, that is precisely what I said the day before and was ridiculed for. As for the heresy continuing... yes, it did for a while - but it was not "supported" by Rome, as seems to be the contention here.

[20:35] <^Julianna> pascoe: do you ride?
[20:35] <skyman> Zosimus renewed the heresy when he readmitted Pelagius & Caelestius back into commounion & tried to bend the will of the Africans to accept them.
[20:35] <skyman> communion i.e.

Again, I was occupied with what White was saying and did not respond to skyman. To respond now, and again I reiterate, Zosimus was NOT renewing the heresy - it still existed. Zosimus did create a controversy in readmitting Pelagius and Celestius, when they truly had NOT given up the Pelagian heresy. The Africans knew this and tried to send to Rome about this (two councils were sent). Rome responded with rescripts of it's own (I submitted it was Magnum Pondus and Postquam a Nobis). St. Augustine's final response on THIS matter was Sermon 131, in which he declares, "causa finita est" (the case is closed). Earlier in this log, skyman admits that as far as St. Augustine and the (North) Africans, the case is closed at this point.
[20:36] <Scott Windsor> No, what I am saying is that the "rescripts" were in response to Magnum Pondus and Postquam a Nobis - and now that the Apostolic See had spoken, the case is closed... he still did not agree with Rome's approval of Pelagius and Celestius... so concluded with "may their error end as well."
[20:36] <skyman> Nooooo, Scott, that simply cannot be.
[20:37] <James White> You are the only person who reads it that way, Scott. :-)
[20:37] <<pascoe> ^Julianna: it's been a long while. we had horses growing up, but didn't take them riding much. my folks decided to raise some horses in the last few years (to keep the pasture down), but we don't ride them either.
[20:37] <Scott Windsor> before we continue sky, you blasted me for what I said last night... do you retract your statement that Augustine wrote Postquam a Nobis?
[20:37] <James White> If the rescripts were IN RESPONSE TO Magnum Pondus, you have even more problems....who wrote in response to Zosimus from Rome???
[20:37] <skyman> Those letters were from Zosimus, and both those letters were his efforts to make the Africans submit to receiving the heretics back into communion.

Yes! That is what I have been saying all along!

[20:37] <James White> That's goofy.
[20:38] <^Julianna> Pascoe: Did you ever ride bareback?
[20:38] Apollos [~robo@tayhou-207-218-237-17.ev1.net] has joined #prosapologian
[20:38] <skyman> BigScott, yes I certainly do - It was my mistake.

Whereas White admitted to contradictory citations in his own article, he continues an attempt to cloud the issue, while skyman has been more forthright and fully admits to his mistake (but then joins James in criticism shortly hereafter).

[20:38] <James White> Thou art confused yet again, Scott.
[20:38] <Scott Windsor> thank you.
[20:38] <skyman> But you are wrong about the content of those letters

No, I believed skyman's own accounting that those letters were Zosimus' "urging" toward the North African bishops to accept Pelagius and Celestius.

[20:38] <James White> "rescripta" is from Rome, not North Africa.

Yes James, that's what I said from the very beginning. I have never said the "rescripta(s)" came from the North Africans.

[20:38] <skyman> You are dead wrong on the big issue.
[20:38] <pascoe> ^Julianna: once. just for a bit.
[20:38] <Scott Windsor> (James), I know that the rescripta came from Rome
[20:39] <James White> Then how can they be "in response" to those letters, which were written by Zosimus?
[20:39] <skyman> BigScott, you still don't get the picture.
[20:39] <SAMpagita> pascoe, what do you think about the cosmetic surgeries to animals for shows?
[20:39] <pascoe> ^Julianna: no bridle either, just pushed on the horse's neck. 8)
[20:39] <James White> And that months after Rome had *already* replied to the North African Councils by agreeing with them (January, 417)?
[20:39] <pascoe> SAMpagita: you mean like breaking the tail?
[20:39] <Scott Windsor> the councils were in response to the letters.... the rescripta was in response to the councils.
[20:39] <^Julianna> Pascoe: Wes and I love toride that way. I rarely use a bridal
[20:39] <skyman> Nooooooo
[20:39] <SAMpagita> yeah and clipping the ears, etc
[20:39] <James White> lol.
[20:40] <Scott Windsor> that's the way it reads
[20:40] <Scott Windsor> without reading presuppositions into it
[20:40] <James White> YOu are the only person who thinks that, Scott.
[20:40] <James White> Every RC historian contradicts you. :-)

James presents an invalid argument here, he makes a statement without any support, and in fact the statement is virtually impossible to support. There is NO WAY James could possibly represent absolutely EVERY RC historian!

[20:40] <James White> What "presuppositions" do they have?
[20:40] PC_Dude [4jchan@modemcable130.131-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #prosapologian
[20:40] <pascoe> SAMpagita: I can't say I've thought about it much. I don't suppose I have a moral objection to it, if that is what you mean. not sure I would do it personally tho, if it were my horse.
[20:40] <^Julianna> Pascoe: Only when there are other people out with there horses. But we normally ride around in the early morning and get far enough into the hills we really do not have to worry about others :)
[20:41] <skyman> The councils of Carthage & Milevis in 416 condemned Pelagianism as heresy. Innocent agreed in Jan. of 417....Then Innocent died in mar. of 417...and soon thereafter when Zosimus became Pope he readmitted the heretics back into communuion.
[20:41] <Scott Windsor> Pope Pius XI agrees with my statements, or I should say mine agree with his
[20:41] PC_Dude [4jchan@modemcable130.131-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca] has quit IRC ()
[20:41] <James White> There is no controversy, at all, about the meaning of Augustine: everyone agrees that 1) the councils were the North African councils that condemned Pelagius; the "rescripta" are Innocents' January 417 letters.
[20:41] <SAMpagita> I just think it's kind of mean...but was curious to your thoughts
[20:41] <James White> That's just the fact.

White has again presented an invalid argument - he has presented NO supporting documentation to support his claim, especially the claim that "everyone agrees..."

[20:41] <Scott Windsor> those were not councils "sent to Rome" those were councils held in North Africa
[20:42] <James White> You don't "send" councils, Scott.
[20:42] <James White> The councils sent their conclusions to Rome: Innocent responded in January of 417.
[20:42] <Scott Windsor> The North Africans "sent" to councils to Rome...
[20:42] Mfibo^ [RUCEP@ppp-204-1-89-18.gs.verio.net] has joined #prosapologian
[20:42] <James White> All RC and Protestant historians, without any exception, say so. :-)

All James?

[20:43] <skyman> Thus when Augustine preached Sermon 131 & said the matter was finished, it was for the Africans, but not for Rome - Because at that very time Zosimus had admitted Pelagius & Caelestius back into communion & was trying to persuade the Afraicans to buckle under his alleged authority & do the same!
[20:43] <James White> No, that is not the case, my friend, and if it is, you might want to tell me what two councils they were?
[20:43] <Scott Windsor> <James White> "For already on this matter two councils have sent to the apostolic see
[20:43] <^Julianna> Although there have been a couple times He has bolted while I was not ready and found myself hanging on for dear life ;) But those are far and few :)
[20:43] <James White> Councils send reports, Scott, not councils.
[20:43] <SAMpagita> Mf - hello bro
[20:43] <Scott Windsor> hmmm.... a word is missing there...
[20:43] <Blondy> You can check you mail, but once you get on Descent you'd never get off
[20:43] <Blondy> woops
[20:43] <Scott Windsor> <James White> "For already on this matter two councils have (been) sent to the apostolic see
[20:44] <skyman> BigScott, When Augustine preached Sermon 131 & said the matter was finished, it was for the Africans, but not for Rome - Because at that very time Zosimus had admitted Pelagius & Caelestius back into communion & was trying to persuade the Africans to buckle under his alleged authority & do the same!
[20:44] CStar sets mode: +o Mfibo^
[20:44] <James White> causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam
[20:44] <Mfibo^> 8,14 Greetings 11,12 to all who labor 2,8 for the cause of Christ!
[20:44] <SAMpagita> hey bro :o)
[20:44] Blondy 2throws confetti in the air for Mfibo^ 3`;.*`;.`~;`5~`* `;.4 Mfibo^ 6~`;.*`;.`~11;`~`*~`;.8~`;.*`;.2 Mfibo^ ~``~`*~`;2.~`;.*`;. `~`4 Mfibo^.*`;.`~;. *`14;.`~; ~`*~` ;. ~8`;.*`;.``~`*~`;6.~`;. *`;. 2 Mfibo^ 9*`;.`~;`~3 `*~`12 Mfibo^ 3`;.*`;.`~;`5~`*`;.12 Mfibo^ 6~`;.*`;.`~11;`~`*~`;.8~`;.*`;.2 Mfibo^ ~``~`*~`;2.~`;.*`;. `~`4 Mfibo^.*`;.`~;. *`14;.`~; ~`*~` ;. ~8`;.*`;.``~`*~`;6.~`;. *`;. 2 Mfibo
[20:44] Nescio [TGENLOE@c273903-h.alntn1.tx.home.com] has quit IRC (Please visit Grace Unknown--http://members.aol.com/GraceUnknown/Homepage.html)
[20:44] <skyman> This is not difficult.
[20:45] <SAMpagita> Blondy, can I have some confetti? :o))
[20:45] <James White> What is a "missa" Scott?
[20:45] <skyman> Even the RC historians affirm this.
[20:45] Blondy 2throws confetti in the air for SAMpagita 3`;.*`;.`~;`5~`* `;.4 SAMpagita 6~`;.*`;.`~11;`~`*~`;.8~`;.*`;.2 SAMpagita ~``~`*~`;2.~`;.*`;. `~`4 SAMpagita.*`;.`~;. *`14;.`~; ~`*~` ;. ~8`;.*`;.``~`*~`;6.~`;. *`;. 2 SAMpagita 9*`;.`~;`~3 `*~`12 SAMpagita 3`;.*`;.`~;`5~`*`;.12 SAMpagita 6~`;.*`;.`~11;`~`*~`;.8~`;.*`;.2 SAMpagita ~``~`*~`;2.~`;.*`;. `~`4 SAMpagita.*`;.`~;. *`14;.`~; ~`*~` ;. ~8`;.*`;.``
[20:45] Playing AHOO.WAV by Blondy.
[20:45] <SAMpagita> ahhh pretty, thank you!
[20:45] <Scott Windsor> For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue (Benedictine version on www.ewtn.com)(Proving that not "all" historians agree with White!)
[20:45] <Blondy> :) just for you
[20:45] <Blondy> 13,6|4,13|13,4|4,7|7,8|8,10|10,12|12,10|13,6|4,13|13,4|4,7|7,8|8,10|10,12|12,10|8,1 SAMpagita is a ninny 13,6|4,13|13,4|4,7|7,8|8,10|10,12|12,10|13,6|4,13|13,4|4,7|7,8|8,10|10,12|12,10|
[20:45] <Blondy> heehee
[20:45] <SAMpagita> thank you sweets
[20:45] <SAMpagita> ninny?
[20:45] <James White> I just posted the Latin for you, Scott.
[20:45] <SAMpagita> oh gee
[20:45] <James White> causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam
[20:45] <Blondy> i dunno...but its bright!
[20:45] <James White> What is a missa?
[20:45] <Blondy> Care for a 5 petal TULIP, SAMpagita? 3 --<--<--4E
[20:46] <SAMpagita> I like the confetti better! :o(
[20:46] Blondy played slug.wav. (F4) - Request Pirch Style. (F3) Request mIRC Style.
[20:46] Blondy 9s8L4a12M7s 12into SAMpagita because 4she can't stop! on her skates
[20:46] <Scott Windsor> missa would be a letter
[20:46] <Blondy> lol
[20:46] <skyman> 3rd time BigScott, When Augustine preached Sermon 131 & said the matter was finished, it was for the Africans, but not for Rome - Because at that very time Zosimus had admitted Pelagius & Caelestius back into communion & was trying to persuade the Africans to buckle under his alleged authority & do the same!
[20:46] Blondy played ahshutup.wav. (F4) - Request Pirch Style. (F3) Request mIRC Style.
[20:46] Blondy reasons with SAMpagita.
[20:46] <SAMpagita> Gonna get gripper to grip you! :o)
[20:46] <James White> OK, so two councils sent letters to the apostolic see. That's what the Latin says.
[20:46] <James White> causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam
[20:46] <Blondy> hey! Imagination.....
[20:46] <Blondy> is crazy....
[20:46] <Blondy> your whole
[20:46] <Scott Windsor> skyman, I can agree with that statement...
[20:46] <James White> causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam
[20:46] <Blondy> perspective goes hazy
[20:46] <Blondy> it gets you askin a daisy
[20:46] <Blondy> what to do
[20:47] <SAMpagita> lol
[20:47] <Blondy> what to doo-o
[20:47] <Blondy> thats his song...:)\
[20:47] <James White> Where is the term "missa" in the translation you provided, Scott?
[20:47] <SAMpagita> is that the song?
[20:47] <Scott Windsor> but Rome had not subcombed to Pelagianism... it had mistakenly accepted PelagIUS
[20:47] <Blondy> samp: yes
[20:47] <Blondy> "Imagination"
[20:47] <SAMpagita> he told me about that
[20:47] <SAMpagita> :o)
[20:47] <Blondy> heehee
[20:47] <skyman> It had temporarily...the pope was deceived by the heretics.
[20:47] <skyman> That is abundantly clear
[20:47] <James White> Where is the term "missa" in the translation you provided, Scott?
[20:48] ^Julianna waves at MFIBO :) Hello there :)
[20:48] <Scott Windsor> the two councils (advice) had been sent to Rome...
[20:48] <skyman> and both of the above mentioned historians state that the African Churches were determined to maintain their autonomy
[20:48] <SAMpagita> I just talked to him last night...tell me the words again so when we talk again I can shoot some lines?
[20:48] <Blondy> 4,1
[20:48] <skyman> Not advice
[20:48] Blondy Hugs Presbys with no 5firewood 1&4 matches 1======4O4,11æ11,4æ11,5æ4,7æ8,7æ7,8æ0,8æ8,0æ15~~~~
[20:48] <Blondy> woops
[20:48] <Scott Windsor> in that translation... that's how it could be read
[20:48] <James White> So which is it....the councils were North African and sent letters to Rome, or the two councils were held in Rome?
[20:48] <skyman> That was not advice those two councils sent, your own historians notes that
[20:48] <Blondy> well i have to go.
[20:48] <skyman> Nope.
[20:48] <Blondy> bye everyone
[20:49] <James White> I don't get the feeling Scott is overly worried about RC historians. :-)
[20:49] Blondy is now known as BlondeAway
[20:49] <Scott Windsor> James... the NA's had sent two letters... (councils)
[20:49] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J.: This teaching [of Pelagius] was condemned by two North African councils in Carthage and Mileve in 416. But since Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement, it seemed appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision.

skyman, I never denied that the teaching of Pelagius (PelagianISM) was condemned by the North Africans, and even Pope Innocent I in Rome, prior to his death. The point here, back to Sermon 131, St. Augustine wishes "their error to be ended as well" and this is after he's stated "causa finita est." Clearly Augustine is RESPONDING to SOMETHING, and since he was in AGREEMENT with Pope Innocent, this HAD to be a response to Pope Zosimus!

[20:49] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J., Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, trans. John A. Otto and Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 34.
[20:49] <skyman> That's why the councils sent word to Rome.
[20:49] <James White> Yes...as a result of two councils they held in 416.
[20:50] <James White> Please tell me what councils were held in Rome in 416, please?
[20:50] <Scott Windsor> skyman, we are in agreement on the condemnation of PelagianISM
[20:50] <skyman> No
[20:50] <skyman> you do not have your facts straight
[20:50] SAMpagita [SAMpagita@ACB6A98E.ipt.aol.com] has left #prosapologian
[20:50] <Scott Windsor> I am accepting the facts you presented sky...
[20:50] pascoe is now known as pascoeAWAY
[20:50] <James White> Scott, two councils were held, one at Carthage, the other at Mileve, in 416. Do you dispute this fact?
[20:51] <skyman> BigScott, as James asked, what councils were held in Rome in 416?
[20:51] Brando is terribly interested in this thread for some reason.
[20:51] <Scott Windsor> James, I do not dispute that fact
[20:51] <skyman> Answer: none
[20:51] Brando thought he should let everyone know hes watching. :P
[20:51] <BlondeAway> brando!!
[20:51] pascoeAWAY apologizes for any disruption to the thread. good night all.
[20:51] <Brando> hi! :D
[20:51] <Scott Windsor> but those were not the councils/missas that were sent to Rome
[20:51] <James White> OK, are you then saying that these two councils did, or did not, send notices of their condemnation of Pelagius to Rome?
[20:51] <skyman> The African councils dealt with the Pelagian heresy decisively & sent word to Rome specifically because that is where the heresy started.
[20:52] <James White> OK, you do know that you are contradicting all RC historians by saying that, right?
[20:52] BlondeAway 2throws confetti in the air for Brando 3`;.*`;.`~;`5~`* `;.4 Brando 6~`;.*`;.`~11;`~`*~`;.8~`;.*`;.2 Brando ~``~`*~`;2.~`;.*`;. `~`4 Brando.*`;.`~;. *`14;.`~; ~`*~` ;. ~8`;.*`;.``~`*~`;6.~`;. *`;. 2 Brando 9*`;.`~;`~3 `*~`12 Brando 3`;.*`;.`~;`5~`*`;.12 Brando 6~`;.*`;.`~11;`~`*~`;.8~`;.*`;.2 Brando ~``~`*~`;2.~`;.*`;. `~`4 Brando.*`;.`~;. *`14;.`~; ~`*~` ;. ~8`;.*`;.``~`*~`;6.~`;. *`;. 2 B
[20:52] <skyman> Those two councils didn't send "advice"...they sent word of their condemnation of the heresy.
[20:52] Brando gets covered in confetti.
[20:52] <Scott Windsor> No, not contradicting them... you have yet to show that
[20:52] <BlondeAway> heehee....my point, the whole time...:)
[20:53] <James White> We have quoted for you Merdinger and Schatz....can you quote someone contrary to them?
[20:53] <Scott Windsor> I am not attempting to quote something contrary to them
[20:53] <skyman> BigScott, you are not "big" enough to admit your error.
[20:53] <James White> If you cannot, please name the councils you think Augustine was referring to.
[20:54] ^Julianna smiles Hello I gotta run :)
[20:54] <Scott Windsor> the councils/missas are not named in Sermon 131... you're presupposing that it MUST have been the NA councils of 416...
[20:54] <James White> I may well have mistyped 416, Scott, instead of 417....I don't know yet, but the fact remains that on this point, you are way out on a limb without a single Roman Catholic behind you. :-)

No, James knows full well that he presented conflicting dates, he admitted that he and skyman were both discussing that very topic as I entered the channel this evening, and skyman confirms that 416 is definitely erroneous - so for James to make this claim at this point in the discussion, especially after INSISTING upon 416 the day before, it truly disingenuous of him.

[20:54] <BlondeAway> bye jul!
[20:54] ^Julianna waves good night :)
[20:54] <BlondeAway> bye!
[20:54] <James White> NIght Jul.
[20:54] <Brando> (http://www.aomin.org/Sermo131.html)
[20:54] <^Julianna> God Bless you all
[20:54] ^Julianna [julianna@PMA6-7.NETVA.COM] has quit IRC ()
[20:55] <skyman> The fact is that RC historians have identified those 2 councils of 416, and they were both African councils, and I believe you BigScott to be too dishonest to admit it.

No, historians state there were two councils in 416, but the do not say the "two councils" that St. Augustine is refering to in Sermon 131 are those same two councils.

[20:55] <James White> The only councils that Augustine would have known of in EITHER September of 416 or September of 417 that had addressed the issue of Pelagianism were Carthage and Mileve!
[20:55] <Brando> Which councils were sent to the apostolic see, Scott?
[20:55] Brando scratches his head.

Now, putting this discussion back into perspective:

[20:55] <Scott Windsor> I was ridiculed and blasted for anachronisms last night, when I was the one presenting the proper order of events last night... regardless of conclusions to the content of the councils/letters/rescripts, etc. do you concur that I was a bit mistreated yesterday?
[20:55] <skyman> BTW BigScott, you can put my last words on your web site about your dishonesty.

Done sky.

[20:56] <Brando> When was Carthage and Mileve held?
[20:56] <James White> You are simply shooting yourself dead here, Scott. Tell ya what....go ask The_Ox.
[20:56] <skyman> No you were not
[20:56] BlondeAway stifles a laugh...i guess that itching powder really does work...thanks for letting me test it on you brando
[20:56] Brando scratches
[20:56] <BlondeAway> d'oh!
[20:56] <Mfibo^> Appeal to pity alert Appeal to pity alert
[20:56] <Mfibo^> Appeal to pity alert Appeal to pity alert
[20:56] <James White> Scott, I have come into your channel on a regular basis over the months and found topic lines with my name in it. Have you ever come in here and found your name in the topic line?
[20:57] <Scott Windsor> OK... when skyman blasted me and said Pondus a nobis was written by Augustine... and the ridicule I took... that was called for?
[20:57] <skyman> This proves my point, when you back a Roman apologist into a corner with the facts, he'd rather die than admit them.
[20:57] <skyman> Well, now I'm accusing you of pure dishonesty
[20:57] <Scott Windsor> Mfibo, not appealing for pity, appealing for acknowledgement
[20:57] <Brando> BigScott this is kind of off the issue of which councils were sent.
[20:57] <Brando> Im curious which councils you think it was
[20:57] <James White> Scott, I will admit: your utter inability to see the forest for the trees does, in fact, cause me no end of frustration.
[20:57] <Brando> And why you think so
[20:58] <Mfibo^> BigScott, why don't you just answer directly? You are dodging the obvious and making appeals to pity.
[20:58] <James White> I'd like to shake you and wake you up.....you are such a nice guy, personally, but when it comes to this area, you are the most pig-headed man I've ever encountered. You remind me of an older man who once sat in the front row of a talk I gave saying, "Mickey Mouse, Mickey Mouse."
[20:58] <BlondeAway> dad: its really really windy and the covers on some of the weights are blowing off and stuff is blowing around....
[20:58] <James White> And you know who THAT was.
[20:59] <James White> Blonde: Uh, fix it. :-)
[20:59] <BlondeAway> uh, josh is trying to
[20:59] <Scott Windsor> skyman, sorry... the opposite would seem to be what transpired last night... we see a lot of backpedalling tonight to cover your tracks and now more accusations against my person. Tonight other things have come up to cloud what transpired last night...
[20:59] <James White> OK.
[20:59] <James White> Is it raining?
[20:59] <BlondeAway> :)
[20:59] <skyman> No, I admitted my error Romanist, you can't
[20:59] <BlondeAway> dont think so
[20:59] <James White> Whoa, I just checked the radar!!!!
[20:59] <skyman> You have proven to me that you are dishonest.
[21:00] <BlondeAway> i know, its windy!
[21:00] <James White> Eeek, folks, I've got a mondo storm bearing down on me.
[21:00] <Scott Windsor> well... I am not above correction... but I need to have proof, not presuppositions as to content of unnamed councils
[21:00] <Mfibo^> BigScott, will you or will you not admit your error?
[21:00] <BlondeAway> bye everyone
[21:00] BlondeAway [~ortho@cpe-24-221-125-165.az.sprintbbd.net] has quit IRC (Justified by faith, at peace with God, Romans 5:1)
[21:00] <skyman> I haven't covered my tracks -0 I admitted my error...you're the one being dishonest
[21:00] <James White> I just checked the radar. Gotta shut my systems down.
[21:00] <Scott Windsor> Mfibo, I will...
[21:00] <James White> 12,10(11,10)12,10(11,10)12,10(11,10)1,10 God's Grace Be Forever Praised! 12,10(11,10)12,10(11,10)12,10(11,10)
[21:00] James White [~ortho@cpe-24-221-125-165.az.sprintbbd.net] has left #prosapologian
[21:00] <Brando> BigScott: Which councils were sent to Rome??
[21:00] <Scott Windsor> they are not named Brando
[21:01] <skyman> baloney
[21:01] <skyman> Everyone knows what they were but you
[21:01] <Brando> Why do you feel they must be different then Carthage and Mileve?
[21:01] <Scott Windsor> show me the names of these councils in Sermon 131
[21:01] <skyman> I don't have too, every historian knows what 2 councils they were & so do you
[21:02] <skyman> That's why you're being dishonest & everyone in the channel is learning just how dishonest you really are.
[21:02] <skyman> I would be ashamed
[21:02] <Scott Windsor> Because those councils of 416 were in agreement with Innocent's stand... the councils were not sent for agreement with Innocent, but in objection to Zosimus.
[21:02] <skyman> No
[21:03] <skyman> Those two councils made a decision before Innocent did anything
[21:03] <Scott Windsor> OK, with you so far
[21:03] <skyman> The Africans sent their decisions to Rome to inform Rome because the heresy sprang *from* Rome.
[21:03] <skyman> That's what your own historians say
[21:04] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J.: This teaching [of Pelagius] was condemned by two North African councils in Carthage and Mileve in 416. But since Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement, it seemed appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision.
[21:04] <Scott Windsor> Only because Pelagius was in Rome...
[21:04] <skyman> Klaus Schatz, S.J., Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, trans. John A. Otto and Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 34.
[21:04] <skyman> Noooo
[21:04] <skyman> Pelagius was born in England
[21:04] <skyman> he was in Rome promoting his heresy

What has Pelagius' birthplace got to do with this discussion? NOTHING! The fact is that Pelagius was IN Rome promoting HIS heresy.

[21:04] <Scott Windsor> The Apostolic See did not originate the heresy...
[21:04] <skyman> before it reached Africa
[21:04] <Scott Windsor> Nooooo....
[21:04] <skyman> Nooooo
[21:05] <skyman> I did not say that, why do you not listen?
[21:05] <Scott Windsor> Rome accepted a false confession... and re-accepted Pelagius
[21:05] <Scott Windsor> not Pelagianism
[21:05] <pascoeAWAY> no true Scottsman.
[21:05] <Brando> Now Zosimus bought into Pelagianism?
[21:05] <skyman> Pelagius was in Rome promoting his heresy...for whatever reason Rome was not dealing with it...Then it spread to Africa & they did deal with it & sent word back to Rome.
[21:05] <Scott Windsor> then Zosimus attempted to get the NA's to accept Pelagius as well... but the NA's would not
[21:06] <skyman> Yes

Wow! Agreement!

[21:06] JavaSellin [carnzen@ool-18bd8c75.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #prosapologian
[21:06] <Brando> Fascinating.
[21:06] <skyman> And the reason the Africans would not submit was because they entertained NO notion of papal primacy

(Unsupported assertion based on skyman's presupposition that there could not possibly be papal primacy).
[21:06] <Scott Windsor> no Brando... Zosimus did NOT buy into Pelagianism... that is not what we read historically... he bought into a false confession that he, though he CLAIMED to fully research, had not.
[21:06] <skyman> even your own historians admit that
[21:07] arq [user@209-162-52-115.thegrid.net] has joined #prosapologian
[21:07] <skyman> Noooooo
[21:07] <Brando> hmm
[21:07] Brando does not pretend to know ANYTHING about this stuff.
[21:07] <Brando> But I like to learn :))
[21:07] <skyman> Zosimus claimed to have examined them & found them not guilty of heresy....he even admitted that Caelestius denied original sin.
[21:07] <skyman> His letter is recorded in Giles
[21:08] <skyman> This is not difficult
[21:08] <Brando> giles??
[21:08] <skyman> Roman scholar
[21:09] <skyman> Zosimus did examine them & he said they were not guilty of heresy even though Caelestius admitted to Zosimus that he denied original sin
[21:09] <Scott Windsor> I personally believe Zosimus was not a great Pope... but he did NOT buy into Pelagianism... history tells us there was a false confession that Celestius presented... and Zosimus bought into that.
[21:09] <skyman> Oh brother
[21:09] <Scott Windsor> I'd have to read what Giles has to say...
[21:09] <tatrbrain> a Great POPE?
[21:09] <skyman> Caelestius was honest to Zosimus about his denial of original sin!
[21:09] <tatrbrain> geez
[21:09] <Scott Windsor> tatr.. I said NOT
[21:09] <skyman> BigScott, will you wait while I post it?
[21:09] <tatrbrain> any one know where i can buy dave hunts book at?
[21:10] tatrbrain is on IRC
[21:10] <Scott Windsor> sky... sure...
[21:10] <skyman> ok, it'll take me a few minutes
[21:10] <Scott Windsor> will you accept another source as well?
[21:10] <Brando> Zosimus knew that he denied original sin, and yet wanted to welcome him back into communion with Rome?
[21:11] <Brando> Ya!!!
[21:11] <Brando> Post it! :)
[21:11] <Brando> I wanna see
[21:12] <skyman>

Section 3 of Celestius’ espistle to Zosimus (417 AD): 3. We did not say that infants therefore must be baptized for the remission of sins in order that we might seem to affirm original sin, which is very alien to catholic sentiment. But because sin is not born with a man, it is subsequently committed by the man; for it is shown to be a fault, not of nature, but of the will. It is fitting, indeed, to confess this lest we should seem to make different kinds of baptism; and it is necessary to lay down this first, lest by the occasion of the mystery, evil should, to the disparagement of the Creator, be said to be conveyed to man by nature, before it has been committed by man. E. Giles, ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454 (Westport: Hyperion Press, reprinted 1982), pp. 205-206.

[21:12] <skyman> There Caelestius admits his denial of original sin to Zosimus
[21:13] <skyman> Caelestius tells the pope that original sin is alien to catholic sentiment
[21:13] <Scott Windsor> OK
[21:13] <skyman> It doesn't get any plainer
[21:14] <skyman> Yet Zosimus on the basis of that confession receives Caelestius back into communion.
[21:14] <JavaSellin> BigScott: Can you briefly explain how an alleged infallibile magisterium can offer you more peace and security than Evangelicals have with "Sola Scriptura" when: A.) YOU cannot infallibly discern your alleged infallible magisterium, B.) Most conservative Catholics admit your magisterium CAN and HAS lead Catholics into dangerous error (albeit, according to Catholics, falling short of declaring anything heretical as Dogma) and C.) Your Popes have only declared a small handful of teachings as Dogma any way
[21:14] <Scott Windsor> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15764c.htm - On Zosimus
[21:14] <skyman> oh brother
[21:15] <Scott Windsor> Java... really engaged in another subject at present
[21:15] <JavaSellin> Well, not really
[21:15] <tatrbrain> Java I gave up on BigScott..he is committed to error
[21:15] RXOXXORXXO [~ADSGK@] has joined #prosapologian
[21:16] <Scott Windsor> tatr... you're the expert now?
[21:16] <tatrbrain> no..
[21:16] <tatrbrain> I never claimed
[21:16] <JavaSellin> hi RXOXXORXXO
[21:16] <Scott Windsor> OK, just checking on what you "gave up on"
[21:16] <JavaSellin> RXOXXORXXO: Are you a Christian?
[21:16] <skyman> What is this supposed to prove?--> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15764c.htm - On Zosimus
[21:16] <tatrbrain> but if the experts have worked on you for this long...
[21:16] RXOXXORXXO [~ADSGK@] has left #prosapologian
[21:16] <tatrbrain> then..whats the point of me?
[21:16] <JavaSellin> i guess not
[21:17] <Scott Windsor> sky, another perspective of the Zosimus incident(s)
[21:17] <skyman> Oh brother, you mean a spin job
[21:17] <Scott Windsor> no, something that preceeds both of us sky...

And hang on a second here! Earlier James and skyman said no historians believe the way I do, yet now when I present something that supports my assertions, suddenly this is a "spin job" and gets not even an acknowledgement. It gets no acknowledgement because it proves James and skyman wrong again (their claim that ALL historians agree with their "take").

[21:17] <skyman> You know Scott, I have no respect for you.
[21:17] <JavaSellin> lol
[21:17] <Scott Windsor> sky, you've made that clear many times... :-)
[21:18] <skyman> You are just too dishonest and/or utterly stupid.
[21:18] <Scott Windsor> I am not dishonest... I just don't fit into your presuppositions....
[21:18] <skyman> baloney
[21:18] Stoker [FastStoker@AC9B918F.ipt.aol.com] has joined #prosapologian
[21:19] <skyman> another spin attempt
[21:19] <skyman> to cast your dishonesty in a favorable light
[21:19] <Scott Windsor> well... the depth of this discussion just went out the window with the ad hominems... so I'll bid you adieu for the evening...
[21:19] Gobbler [.@1Cust58.tnt14.phoenix.az.da.uu.net] has joined #prosapologian
[21:19] CStar sets mode: +o Gobbler
*** Log file closed: 07/29/2001 9:19:36 PM