Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
What Subduction Zone said.
You need to read some new sources.
There are many discussions concerning this topic here on RF.
*
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: How do you know which books of the bible are "inspired?"
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
What Subduction Zone said.
You need to read some new sources.
There are many discussions concerning this topic here on RF.
*
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
I use the KJV, and also know that there are other documents that have wisdom. I don't trust ANY human authority well enough to hang on their words. Most of what you need to know about God's will for you can be on a single typewritten page that shows about a dozen scriptures. There is a theme that God expresses that rings through all the documents I've seen. Those who seek to make your belief system burdensome and uncertain are not from God.
I sit in a church on Sunday to praise God, and receive the Sacrament if offered.
Thinking Homer
Understanding and challenging different worldviews
What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?
The apocrypha contradicts Scripture
What About the Apocrypha
Errors in the Apocrypha | CARM.org
To check which books are divinely inspired, the above resources focused on the following points:
1) Historical accuracy
2) Reference to OT scriptures in the NT
3) Consistency in doctrine (esp atonement with blood, salvation through grace)
4) Consensus among early church leaders
We can see that the following Apocrypha books were rejected on the following points:
The apocrypha contradicts Scripture
What About the Apocrypha
Errors in the Apocrypha | CARM.org
To check which books are divinely inspired, the above resources focused on the following points:
1) Historical accuracy
2) Reference to OT scriptures in the NT
3) Consistency in doctrine (esp atonement with blood, salvation through grace)
4) Consensus among early church leaders
We can see that the following Apocrypha books were rejected on the following points:
- Tobit (Tobias) -1 historical error - 9 pgs
- Judith -14 historical errors -14 pgs
- Additions to Esther -2 historical errors - 4 pgs
- Wisdom of Solomon -2 contradict doct. -19 pgs
- Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) -8 contradict doct. -44 pgs
- Baruch -4 historical errors - 7 pgs
- Bel & the Dragon (in Dan) -1 error - 2 pgs
- 1 and 2 Maccabees -2 historical errors -41 pgs
Last edited:
Not sure how you got that.
It isn't about "the original Christian church was wrong". There is nothing "wrong" about including historical text, the Apocryphal books in the Bible.
Not sure why you are making Luther the standard but the 66 books were created even in the time of Jerome way before Luther.
the 39 Books were created even before the Christian Church was formed... so what's your beef?
Your doubts aren't confirmed by the father's of the faith. But you are welcomed to have an opinion.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Basically you need a personal relationship with God and especially you need to be full of the holy Spirit then you will know what is from God because as the scriptures assure us over and over God will teach us.
WalterTrull
Godfella
I would think inspiration is how we live. Not crazy about a lot of it, but there it is. Come onnnn understanding.
Audie
Veteran Member
So why doesnt he? You guys each get "taught" different
and contradictory things. It is one of the biggest credibility
problems you guys have.
Solving it with "he is duped by satan" etc just makes it worse.
Audie
Veteran Member
Kinda cryptic there!
But I do see the idea "proof is in
the pudding".
What I see demonstrated is generally
not very impressive.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Excellent question. I'm pretty sure I don't have the answer. One thing I do know, though, is that people seem to be able to deal with the differences between the various Christian denominations's Bibles a whole lot more rationally than they do with additional Christian scripture compiled in a book with an entirely different title.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Let's take a brief look at the evolution of the biblical canon. In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We should simply recognize it for what it is -- a recorded record of God's dealings with mankind in one part of the world. It never claims to be complete. As a matter of fact, it claims quite the opposite. In the end of John, we're told that Jesus Christ did so many things as part of His ministry, that had they even been recorded, they'd more than have filled all of the books in the world. That's quite a statement, and to me, it's saying that we should love the Bible for what it is, but not try to make it into something it isn't, or even claims to be.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We should simply recognize it for what it is -- a recorded record of God's dealings with mankind in one part of the world. It never claims to be complete. As a matter of fact, it claims quite the opposite. In the end of John, we're told that Jesus Christ did so many things as part of His ministry, that had they even been recorded, they'd more than have filled all of the books in the world. That's quite a statement, and to me, it's saying that we should love the Bible for what it is, but not try to make it into something it isn't, or even claims to be.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Unfortunately, we disagree somewhat fundamentally on "meaning of life" stuff, wherein is the crypt.
True, but I don't think I was going there. Maybe.
I'm almost always impressed. Wish I understood more of it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
nPeace
Veteran Member
Claim? What claim?
I stated facts. There were no claims made.
What I posted is evidence from sources.
I didn't make it up. It is documented. Is it not?
Most dates. Most dates. Funny.
Because those dates suit you SZ, that doesn't mean they are right. Does it?
It is of course clear that the fragments, obviously belonging to a codex, was not written by John. That's obvious.
Which supports my point. John wrote the Gospel earlier, and since it is accepted that the other three Gospels were completed earlier than John's, then all the Gospels were completed at an earlier date. Possibly as early 40 CE.
There is clear evidence for this. (See the spoiler below)
So why does it appear that John was not the writer? Is it because that's what you wish to believe, or have they actually gathered hard evidence to support that belief?
Gospel of John
The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions. It is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, and most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.
Yes. Was dated to about 170 CE
The writings were in circulation well before 100 CE.
There is no need to prove anything regarding the writers. That doesn't change the fact that there were four Gospels written in the first century about the Christ. Not to mention 13 letters of the apostle Paul.
Why would I be affected by non-believers who can't prove or disapprove anything?
I see no problem at all, at least not with my position.
So now you chose the critics that argue an earlier period rather than the ones that argue a later one. Why? Because it suits you. Hilarious. (See the Spoiler to verify what I said).
Let me say again...
No one knows anything regarding what @Ingledsva said.
No one knows that.
However, there is solid evidence that the books were written by those followers of Jesus the Christ, at a period, not long after his death - 33 CE., and that what they wrote of Jesus of Nazareth is more than likely true.
Your post apparently changes nothing. Unless there is something else you want to present that says otherwise.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Evidence for early writing of Gospels.
New Testament
The original texts were written in the first and perhaps the second centuries of the Christian Era, in Greek, ....
All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 120 AD,. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD,or at 96 AD.
Canonical gospels
The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the foremost sources for the life and message of Jesus. However, other parts of the New Testament also include references to key episodes in his life, such as the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23. Acts of the Apostles (Acts 10:37–38 and Acts 19) refers to the early ministry of Jesus and its anticipation by John the Baptist. Acts 1:1–11 says more about the Ascension of Jesus (also mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:16) than the canonical gospels do. In the undisputed Pauline letters, which were written earlier than the gospels, the words or instructions of Jesus are cited several times (1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 9:14, 11:23–25, 2 Corinthians 12:9).
.....
The canonical gospels are four accounts, each written by a different author. The authors of the gospels are all anonymous, attributed by tradition to the four evangelists, each with close ties to Jesus: Mark by John Mark, an associate of Peter; Matthew by one of Jesus' disciples; Luke by a companion of Paul mentioned in a few epistles; and John by another of Jesus' disciples, the "beloved disciple".
One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the literary genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings". Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. Some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography. Although not without critics, the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today.
Not everything contained in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Views range from their being inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus to their providing little historical information about his life beyond the basics. According to a broad scholarly consensus, the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and not John, are the most reliable sources of information about Jesus.
According to the Marcan priority, the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark (written AD 60–75), followed by the Gospel of Matthew (AD 65–85), the Gospel of Luke (AD 65–95), and the Gospel of John (AD 75–100). Furthermore, most scholars agree that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels. Matthew and Luke also share some content not found in Mark. To explain this, many scholars believe that in addition to Mark, another source (commonly called the "Q source") was used by the two authors.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels, from the Greek σύν (syn "together") and ὄψις (opsis "view"). They are similar in content, narrative arrangement, language and paragraph structure. Scholars generally agree that it is impossible to find any direct literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. While the flow of some events (such as Jesus' baptism, transfiguration, crucifixion and interactions with the apostles) are shared among the Synoptic Gospels, incidents such as the transfiguration do not appear in John, which also differs on other matters, such as the Cleansing of the Temple.
............
Although the Gospel of John does not include a description of the bread-and-wine ritual during the Last Supper, most scholars agree that John 6:22–59 (the Bread of Life Discourse) has a eucharistic character and resonates with the institution narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Pauline writings on the Last Supper.
............
Most scholars consider Jesus' crucifixion to be factual, because early Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.
The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; and others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.
According to the majority viewpoint the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.
The Gospel According to John is the fourth of the canonical gospels. The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions. It is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, and most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.
Composition
The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110. It arose in a Jewish Christian community probably located in Ephesus in modern Turkey, although other possibilities include Antioch (Syria), Palestine, and Alexandria (Egypt). It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author. Christian tradition identified this disciple as the apostle John, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.
The Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity is traditionally regarded as the period of the Twelve Apostles, dating from the Great Commission of the Apostles by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem around 33 AD until the death of the last Apostle, believed to be John the Apostlein Anatolia c. 100.
Christianity in the 2nd century was largely the time of the Apostolic Fatherswho were the students of the apostles of Jesus, though there is some overlap as John the Apostle may have survived into the 2nd century and Clement of Rome is said to have died at the end of the 1st century. While the Christian church was centered in Jerusalem in the 1st century, it became decentralized in the 2nd century. The 2nd century was also the time of several people who were later declared to be major heretics, such as Marcion, Valentinius, and Montanus.
Pope Clement 1
Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter, and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. The Liber Pontificalis states that Clement died in Greece in the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD.
CONCLUSION
Speculations, assumption, doubts, and skepticism do not establish anything.
There will always be critics. So what does that mean? Critics come, and critics go.
The evidence for the reliability and harmony of the scripture are internally sound, and there is therefore no reason for Christians to doubt their authenticity.
If the critics want to continue to do that indefinitely, I say 'Why not?Go ahead. Knock yourself out. When more evidence surfaces - if it does - prepare to be knocked out. They can also go for the TKO, if they wish.
You too SZ.
The original texts were written in the first and perhaps the second centuries of the Christian Era, in Greek, ....
All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 120 AD,. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD,or at 96 AD.
Canonical gospels
The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the foremost sources for the life and message of Jesus. However, other parts of the New Testament also include references to key episodes in his life, such as the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23. Acts of the Apostles (Acts 10:37–38 and Acts 19) refers to the early ministry of Jesus and its anticipation by John the Baptist. Acts 1:1–11 says more about the Ascension of Jesus (also mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:16) than the canonical gospels do. In the undisputed Pauline letters, which were written earlier than the gospels, the words or instructions of Jesus are cited several times (1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 9:14, 11:23–25, 2 Corinthians 12:9).
.....
The canonical gospels are four accounts, each written by a different author. The authors of the gospels are all anonymous, attributed by tradition to the four evangelists, each with close ties to Jesus: Mark by John Mark, an associate of Peter; Matthew by one of Jesus' disciples; Luke by a companion of Paul mentioned in a few epistles; and John by another of Jesus' disciples, the "beloved disciple".
One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the literary genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings". Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. Some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography. Although not without critics, the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today.
Not everything contained in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Views range from their being inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus to their providing little historical information about his life beyond the basics. According to a broad scholarly consensus, the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and not John, are the most reliable sources of information about Jesus.
According to the Marcan priority, the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark (written AD 60–75), followed by the Gospel of Matthew (AD 65–85), the Gospel of Luke (AD 65–95), and the Gospel of John (AD 75–100). Furthermore, most scholars agree that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels. Matthew and Luke also share some content not found in Mark. To explain this, many scholars believe that in addition to Mark, another source (commonly called the "Q source") was used by the two authors.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels, from the Greek σύν (syn "together") and ὄψις (opsis "view"). They are similar in content, narrative arrangement, language and paragraph structure. Scholars generally agree that it is impossible to find any direct literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. While the flow of some events (such as Jesus' baptism, transfiguration, crucifixion and interactions with the apostles) are shared among the Synoptic Gospels, incidents such as the transfiguration do not appear in John, which also differs on other matters, such as the Cleansing of the Temple.
............
Although the Gospel of John does not include a description of the bread-and-wine ritual during the Last Supper, most scholars agree that John 6:22–59 (the Bread of Life Discourse) has a eucharistic character and resonates with the institution narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Pauline writings on the Last Supper.
............
Most scholars consider Jesus' crucifixion to be factual, because early Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.
The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; and others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.
According to the majority viewpoint the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.
The Gospel According to John is the fourth of the canonical gospels. The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions. It is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, and most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.
Composition
The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110. It arose in a Jewish Christian community probably located in Ephesus in modern Turkey, although other possibilities include Antioch (Syria), Palestine, and Alexandria (Egypt). It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author. Christian tradition identified this disciple as the apostle John, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.
The Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity is traditionally regarded as the period of the Twelve Apostles, dating from the Great Commission of the Apostles by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem around 33 AD until the death of the last Apostle, believed to be John the Apostlein Anatolia c. 100.
Christianity in the 2nd century was largely the time of the Apostolic Fatherswho were the students of the apostles of Jesus, though there is some overlap as John the Apostle may have survived into the 2nd century and Clement of Rome is said to have died at the end of the 1st century. While the Christian church was centered in Jerusalem in the 1st century, it became decentralized in the 2nd century. The 2nd century was also the time of several people who were later declared to be major heretics, such as Marcion, Valentinius, and Montanus.
Pope Clement 1
Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter, and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. The Liber Pontificalis states that Clement died in Greece in the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD.
CONCLUSION
Speculations, assumption, doubts, and skepticism do not establish anything.
There will always be critics. So what does that mean? Critics come, and critics go.
The evidence for the reliability and harmony of the scripture are internally sound, and there is therefore no reason for Christians to doubt their authenticity.
If the critics want to continue to do that indefinitely, I say 'Why not?Go ahead. Knock yourself out.
When more evidence surfaces - if it does - prepare to be knocked out. They can also go for the TKO, if they wish. You too SZ.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you start your post with a dishonest statement how do you expect anyone to believe you? This was you major claim and none of your sources support it:
"There is solid evidence that the books were written by those claiming to have written them, and that what they wrote of Jesus of Nazareth is true."
Wow, you are confused.
Please try again. And no excessive green ink please. It makes your posts illegible and impossible to respond to properly. The bottom line is that your own resources tell us that you are wrong.
Perhaps you should try to address one point at a time since multiple points appear to be beyond your ability to deal with properly.[/quote][/quote]
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Referring to your own posts is a form of admitting that you are wrong. Refer to the sources, not your refuted claims please.
And once again, excessive green ink is a sign of mental instability. It is best to avoid it in a debate.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that you can't answer the question. You're saying that the books "considered canonical" seem to harmonize perfectly. Considered canonical by whom? As I have emphasized, different Christian denominations consider different books to be canonical and you haven't identified which canon you use and why you believe that this canon is superior to the others.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
So, why do you reject the 84-book bible used by Ethiopian Christians then? Why do you reject other gospels not included in the bible like the Gospel of Thomas? Do you realize that the bible was decided by a vote in the fourth century AD and that different church fathers disagreed on what books to include?