Search results

Good idea. Rufinus first line: "There are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon..." Athanasius: "But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical..." Just as I have repeatedly said both Athanasius and Rufinus...

And I never said you did. Try and read what others write.

It is so sad when someone cannot admit the truth. (Post 1) (Post 3) Again I encourage everyone to read for themselves that both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly points out those books are NOT canonical. Moreover check out the canon lists of Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of...

No need. I invite everyone to read for themselves that both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly points out those books are NOT canonical. I also invite everyone to ask themselves if it makes sense, per your claim, to think that non-canonical and canonical writings are equal, on the same level.

Rufinus clearly points out they are NOT canonical. You claimed they were equal. It is pure fantasy to believe that non-canonical and canonical writings are on the same level. The whole point of putting them into different categories, as Athanasius and Rufinus do, proves you are wrong.

I have stated over and overs again, that some believed some of those books to be canonical while OTHER DID NOT. You are simply choosing to ignore them and any other evidence in favor of your confirmation bias. Same point as above. We know this for a FACT. Some church fathers left us lists...

There was no point since there was nothing worthy of comment. The fact is you made the following false claim: Both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly state these books are NOT CANONICAL. The reason they do this is to differentiate them from books where ARE canonical. To claim that the two groups...

That is nonsense. Books that are canonical are authoritative and therefore by definition Scripture. Those books which are NOT canonical are and cannot be authoritative and consequently cannot be Scripture. :ROFLMAO: Too bad neither Athanasius and Rufinus agree with you. What in the word...

Not according to Athanasius: "There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and...

None whatsoever. I am simply pointing out the fact your claim have no support. Because it is a fact. It is the objective evidence that proves your claim false. First, you have NONE. Thus your claim cannot be supported with any objective evidence. Second, you are wrong. (a) There is not...

Oh really. Let's see if there is nothing more. You claimed in post 1 "Clement was directly discipled by Paul himself." That claim is blatantly false. Now don't embarrass yourself by citing Philippians 4:3 again. Paul no where in that verse refers to Clement as "his direct disciple." In...

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations. If that upsets you I don't really care.

😂😂😂 Very sad. You just can't stop yourself.

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations. If that upsets you I don't really care. No where does 1st Clement call Judith scripture. There is no doubt 1st Clement clearly links the sacred scriptures to Moses by direct quotes. "For ye...

Can you say "The Da Vinci Code." First, the best way, in my opinion, is to refute the so-called evidence for such an erroneous claims. The fact is there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that Jesus and Mary had children. Second, there is nothing even remotely historical about the History Channel. It...

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations.

Which proves nothing in the case of Judith and therefore is inconsequential. :LOL: Not of the Scriptures, but of your blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations I most certainly do.

He does not call it scripture. However there is no doubt 1st Clement clearly links the sacred scriptures to Moses by direct quotes. "For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in...

Not really. You grasp at shadows because you only see what you want to see, find what you want to find. What you have provided is nothing more than an interpolation which dates to the 4th century A.D and clearly was not written by Ignatius. The Letters of Ignatius are divided into two groups...

That does nothing to refute @Josiah's comment. He pointed out that Clement "NEVER mentions knowing Paul or even meeting him."