Search results

I won't wait for primary sources because I already know nothing will be forthcoming.

No that is not what I said. I have repeatedly said some did and some did not. Clearly you are unwilling or unable to get even that simple fact right. The reason is because it does not matter. Whatever my view might be that would in no way change the fact you have no primary sources to...

How would that help your claims?

Really EVERYTHING!!! "They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword." Cite the passage for the section in bold. Opinions without evidence are pure peculation. So again I point out that a New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture...

I have already cover this information in your other thread. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture. There is more than one example found in the N.T. to prove the point. Thus even if it is a reference to 2 Maccabees that does not prove the author accepted...

Except for the fact there is no evidence. Since Paul does not specifically name any Jewish fable in order to warned his readers, your claim proves nothing concerning Judith. Just another example wishful thinking on your part. My point is simple. Any view put forward requires objective...

Never said they did. Never said that either. Again please stop trying to put words into my mouth. Since Catholics are christian as you have admitted, and given it is a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope as you have admitted, how is that spitting "on the faces of Christians"?

I did not ask if he was a bishop. I asked, is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)? And then I added: "Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it" which I am still not. So once again, is it not a common belief among them that Clement...

Is it not a common belief among them that Clement was an early Pope (See Annuario Pontificio)? Mind you I am not asking if you agree with it.

Are Catholics christians?

Please stop trying to put words into my mouth. I NEVER suggested anything like that. Clearly you have not read what I have written.

All we have are the canon lists and comments made by the Church Fathers and other theologians. As I have continually pointed out some did accept it and others rejected as it Scripture.

You are misrepresenting my comment. First, I NEVER used the word "majority." Second, the word "many" does not mean "majority." Third, if I meant "majority," then I would have used that word. Since I did not use that word, clearly that was not what I meant.

That is not evidence but your personal opinion.

Exactly where did I make that claim? Be specific! Please provide the link.

Is the truth of a matter decided by majority vote?

I have. If you care to look I start a thread on canon list some time ago. You even posted on it.

Either evidence exist or it does not. Lack of evidence cannot support a point. One cannot prove something exists by pointing out there is no evidence for it. Such an idea is absolutely ludacris.

And there is clear evidence that many did not. Pure fantasy with zero evidence to support it. Again rank speculation with no evidence to support the claim. It really does not matter what they acknowledge without evidence. Please cite a 1st century primary source for that information...

What in the world are you talking about? I NEVER made any claim like that.