Search results

It isn't a heresy.

So you admit that your argument is based on silence. And so are you Yes, but - and I state this again so that you can hopefully grasp it this time - neither you nor I know what was in Tertullian's 'whole volume' as he doesn't provide a list. All congregations? and we know this is the case...

Surely such instances would be covered by the general common law defence of self-defence, so why would the bill need to specifically mention (I agree it would have been best practice if it had, but it didn't need to).

I'm saying that there were congregations which did not receive all 27 books - how could they accept them if they never received them? Your contention is that all 27 books were circulated to and accepted by all NT congregations by the time John hung up his pen at the end of Revelation, right? The...

On what basis do you assert this? It's more than a bit of a stretch to assert that Jesus' words about the martyrdom of the prophets are to applied to the limitation of the OT Canon!

I wasn't talking specifically about Jesus (Targus brought him up) but the NT, which can be proved.

Except that we don't know that the Didache and Barnabas don't also meet the bill there. But all accepted by all the NT congregations? I think not. Yes, but this presupposes that Tertullian's "whole volume" was the same as ours. We don't have the evidence that it was.

Shame it was defeated.

...and indeed where the NT quotes the OT, more often than not it is the LXX version quoted.

What's so magical about the date 400BC?

Quote from the fictional Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister:

They could have done it a lot sooner - way back last century - if they hadn't started those two world wars....

The Jewish OT Canon was not determined until after 80 AD at Jamnia/ Yavneh, well into the Apostolic Period; up until then the LXX was in common circulation and would have been used by Jesus, the apostles and, come to that, the Bereans of Acts 17. Strange, is it not, that not a single NT writer...

Agree with what Roger has said. The basic problem with the Euro has been and always will be that you can't have monetary union without fiscal union (hence why the Irish, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Greek governments have been able to spend shedloads of money they haven't got) and you can't...

To DHK: so you're setting yourself up as the custodian of God's Word? Wow! The LXX translators accepted them BTW... To Walter: None of which defines the Canon. I'm still not sure that you understand the nature of my question. Following your numbering agains: 1.The Isaiah prophecy is all well...

I don't reject any of them! But I'm asking you how you know that the 27 you have are the correct ones. Except that the facts show that some at least didn't - many areas were very wary for example of accepting Revelation and James. But none of these give a table of contents for the NT - I'm...

I don't deny either of these points. I am asking you to produce evidence that all 27 books were received by 'the churches' prior to the end of the first century as constituting the NT. So you admit that you can't prove that Tertullian accepted the 27 books we have as constituting the NT.

Using your numbering: 1. Acknowledged by whom? 2. Confirmed by whom? 3. Who are the 'caretakers of God's Word'? 4. Not all Scripture claims this. 5. As assessed by whom?

A bare assertion. You have repeatedly been asked to produce evidence for this and have repeatedly failed to do so, so it does you no credit to keep harping on about this being a 'fact'. Marcion's Canon included only 10 letters of Paul plus the Gospel of Luke. If you want to cite Tertullian then...

So you're maintaining your line then that the RCC only came into existence in the 4th century despite what we would today consider distinctively Catholc beliefs and practices being in the church before that...?