Search results

The question was asked "Why did he think that?" My answer was no one knows. Then I explain why. Jerome does not tell us and there is no record of it. We all can read what he claims. The question is why does he believe it and why is there no record of it. And those things he does not explain.

No one knows. Jerome does not tell and there is no record of it.

I have already pointed out the problems with the canon list supposedly from the council of Rome https://christianityhaven.com/threads/what-year-was-it-when-protestants-first-started-to-remove-books-from-the-holy-bible.10471/#post-205981 Nothing in your post changes that.

Damascus was not made pope until 366. Nicaea was held in 325. At the time of the council Sylvester I was pope but did not attend the council. The emperor Constantine presided over the council.

Others can read and make up their own minds. An argument from incredulity "asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." First, Henry B. Smith does not have a Ph.D. At least his site says nothing about it...

No matter how many times you repeat yourself it doesn't get better. It is still the fallacy argumentum ad populum.

You have committed ANOTHER fallacy, argumentum ad populum.

An argument from incredulity "asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." That is just what you have done.

Your point makes zero sense. There is no reason in bringing up the fact that Augustine at wasn’t at the Council of Nicaea as proof of something (which is exactly what you did), when there is no way he could have been at the council since he hadn't even been born yet. Your claim was pointless...

Sorry but it does. An argument from incredulity "asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine."

You stated: "I find it interesting that you prefer Augustine, who did NOT attend the Council of Nicaea, but you reject Eusebius who DID attend the Council of Nicaea. I tend to think that Eusebius probably had a better grasp on what the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea believed...

That question amounts to nothing more than the fallacy argument from incredulity.

I merely point out Augustine's very reasonable view of the matter. Your point is just plain silly. The council of Nicaea was held in 325. Augustine wasn't even born until 354. First, I never said I rejected Eusebius. I simply point out Augustine's alternative view. Second, you reject...

Correct on all points. EXCELLENT POINT! Augustine, for example, has a much more reasonable and sane view of the matter. “However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, though...

Some did and some did not. Zero evidence. Zero evidence. NEXT!!!

That is a myth. He didn't discover that the Earth is round. Christopher Columbus already knew the Earth was round.

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list. No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha. No where does Rufinus even mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc. After having a following out with Jerome, Rufinus gives his cannon list...

Wrong again. It was not decades before but after. Jerome wrote his tome Against Rufinus ca. 402. Rufinus penned Exposition of the Creed ca. 404. "It is usual to date the Commentarius round about the year 404." Rufinus. (1955). Rufinus: A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Ancient Christian...

We have no canon list from Peter and no one can provide one. Give the canon list Rufinus provides in Exposition of the Creed, and given the FACT that Rufinus: No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list. No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha...