Search results

Don't be. Remember "the one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." There are several serious historical problems with the information. As this site points out. http://www.bible-researcher.com/gelasius.html "For the past century most scholars have...

A quick check of Evans' book shows that he does not claim 1st and 2nd Esdras, 3rd Maccabees, the Prayer of Masasseh, or Psalm 151 are part the O.T. canon of the Coptic church.

Different LXX manuscripts\codices sometime contain difference Greek versions of some books. Just like the book of Daniel (see above post 2) there are two Greek versions of Esther. They are the Old Greek version (OG) and the Alpha-Text version (AT). The AT is found in only 4 manuscripts and is...

You mean "assault" not "a Salt."

See! There you go again.

Then you should stop replying to my post.

I know. Untrue. I am informing others that Athanasius does not say and anything else would be pure speculation. That is helpful to those who don't know that information.

You asked a question. "Why did Athanasius omit Maccabees from both his canonical and non-canonical lists?" I answered it. Athanasius does not say. Anything else would be nothing more than speculation.

Athanasius does not say.

I vote Luxembourg.

Sure whatever. When I see false information I will respond. It is not a game to provide factual information in order to correct errors. I will post when I want and on which topics I want. Don't care. See ya!

What matters is the accuracy of the information provided by you in this thread and which has been proven to be suspect to say the least. The only reason you care about my view is so that you can divert attention away from your factual errors.

I never said that either. Again, my goal was to draw attention to the facts concerning what Athanasius actually did say verses what he clearly did not say (as well as Melito).

I never said I agreed. My goal was to draw attention to the facts concerning what Athanasius actually did say verses what he clearly did not say (as well as Melito).

Yes. Athanasius did not believe they were Scripture, but that does not mean he thought they were apocryphal.

Yes I did and I am correct. I never make such a claim. You are trying to mislead. There is no reason since you are wrong. That is not correct. He not did claim Esther was apocryphal. You are misrepresenting Athanasius.

Please provide primary sources for these claims.

You are misrepresenting Athanasius. Athanasius makes it clear there are three groups of books. First, there are the canonical books. Second, there are "other books" which are not canonical "but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be...

Again we have no idea why Esther is missing from Melito's list. We don't even know if its omission was accidental or intentional. As far as I aware Athanasius does not cite the lack of God name in Esther as a reason.

You comment is blatantly false. Neither Athanasius or Melito claimed that Esther was apocryphal or an invention of heretics. Also the title of your thread also contains false information. Melito never said Esther does not belong in the canon. We have no idea why Esther is missing from his list.