BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

---

I JUST QUOTED YOU above. Seriously??

Are you seriously this desnse and/or dishonest? Do you really think you can gas light people like this? MY GOD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

---

I JUST QUOTED YOU above. Seriously??

Are you seriously this desnse and/or dishonest? Do you really think you can gas light people like this? MY GOD.

---

That was in reference to your claim that we know Scripture is authoritative because it came from the Apostles: "The proof is that if I ask you to produce ANY OTHER words, written or verbal, that we KNOW came from the apostles but is NOT in Scripture, you can't do it. No one can."

And you shouldn't blaspheme.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

---

I JUST QUOTED YOU above. Seriously??

Are you seriously this desnse and/or dishonest? Do you really think you can gas light people like this? MY GOD.

---

That was in reference to your claim that we know Scripture is authoritative because it came from the Apostles: "The proof is that if I ask you to produce ANY OTHER words, written or verbal, that we KNOW came from the apostles but is NOT in Scripture, you can't do it. No one can."

And you shouldn't blaspheme.

---

Right, so IT WAS YOUR CLAIM, and the basis of the argument that followed. How do show yourself on these forums when you outright lie like this? The Roman Catholics here like yourself just represent yourselves and your church so very poorly. I'm kinda glad you guys do this, because it only strengthens my message that Roman Catholicism is in darkness.

It's not blaspheming to say "My God". Otherwise, you're saying Jesus blasphemed while on the cross. Another example of you RC's not knowing Scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

---

I JUST QUOTED YOU above. Seriously??

Are you seriously this desnse and/or dishonest? Do you really think you can gas light people like this? MY GOD.

---

That was in reference to your claim that we know Scripture is authoritative because it came from the Apostles: "The proof is that if I ask you to produce ANY OTHER words, written or verbal, that we KNOW came from the apostles but is NOT in Scripture, you can't do it. No one can."

And you shouldn't blaspheme.

---

Right, so IT WAS YOUR CLAIM, and the basis of the argument that followed. How do show yourself on these forums when you outright lie like this? The Roman Catholics here like yourself just represent yourselves and your church so very poorly. I'm kinda glad you guys do this, because it only strengthens my message that Roman Catholicism is in darkness.

It's not blaspheming to say "My God". Otherwise, you're saying Jesus blasphemed while on the cross. Another example of you RC's not knowing Scripture.

---

Again, unless you're saying differently, it's always been your claim that the NT is infallible because we know it came from the Apostles.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

---

I JUST QUOTED YOU above. Seriously??

Are you seriously this desnse and/or dishonest? Do you really think you can gas light people like this? MY GOD.

---

That was in reference to your claim that we know Scripture is authoritative because it came from the Apostles: "The proof is that if I ask you to produce ANY OTHER words, written or verbal, that we KNOW came from the apostles but is NOT in Scripture, you can't do it. No one can."

And you shouldn't blaspheme.

---

Right, so IT WAS YOUR CLAIM, and the basis of the argument that followed. How do show yourself on these forums when you outright lie like this? The Roman Catholics here like yourself just represent yourselves and your church so very poorly. I'm kinda glad you guys do this, because it only strengthens my message that Roman Catholicism is in darkness.

It's not blaspheming to say "My God". Otherwise, you're saying Jesus blasphemed while on the cross. Another example of you RC's not knowing Scripture.

---

Again, unless you're saying differently, it's always been your claim that the NT is infallible because we know it came from the Apostles.

---

You claimed that authorship wasn't your claim, when you had specifically made that claim.

You're running away from that because you got caught and called out. Why not just own up to your lie and shameless gas lighting, instead of playing diversionary games? How are you so brazen as to not care how poorly this makes you and Roman Catholics look?

My God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

---

I JUST QUOTED YOU above. Seriously??

Are you seriously this desnse and/or dishonest? Do you really think you can gas light people like this? MY GOD.

---

That was in reference to your claim that we know Scripture is authoritative because it came from the Apostles: "The proof is that if I ask you to produce ANY OTHER words, written or verbal, that we KNOW came from the apostles but is NOT in Scripture, you can't do it. No one can."

And you shouldn't blaspheme.

---

Right, so IT WAS YOUR CLAIM, and the basis of the argument that followed. How do show yourself on these forums when you outright lie like this? The Roman Catholics here like yourself just represent yourselves and your church so very poorly. I'm kinda glad you guys do this, because it only strengthens my message that Roman Catholicism is in darkness.

It's not blaspheming to say "My God". Otherwise, you're saying Jesus blasphemed while on the cross. Another example of you RC's not knowing Scripture.

---

Again, unless you're saying differently, it's always been your claim that the NT is infallible because we know it came from the Apostles.

---

You claimed that authorship wasn't your claim, when you had specifically made that claim.

You're running away from that because you got caught and called out. Why not just own up to your lie and shameless gas lighting, instead of playing diversionary games? How are you so brazen as to not care how poorly this makes you and Roman Catholics look?

My God.

---

As I've said, authorship was a significant factor but not the only one. Have a good night.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe existence of the unbroken chain is proof of its existence. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning defined.

---

No, its a type of "Cogito, ergo sum". Like a tautology. It's existence is proof itself that it exists.

Your misconception is that its existence needs to be proven externally. Therefore you see it as circular. The unbroken chain of testimony for the authorship/source of the writings exists by testimony, not by "judgement". It does not take "judgement", "authority", or "proof" to pass on the knowledge of authorship that was received from those before you.

---

Again, others have looked at the same evidence and rejected it. I agree that the historical evidence for the validity of the NT canon is compelling. But that's just one of many historical opinions. You're claiming more than that. You're claiming that the evidence is infallible, which is a different claim altogether. It is nothing more or less than a statement of faith. That faith cannot be grounded in the historical record alone. It is in fact derived from the judgment of the Church.

---

The historical witness of the church is that the writings are authentic, via an organic, continuous and unbroken chain of testimony.

This isn't a claim to "infallibility", but merely a claim to its existence. Cite the scholarship that you say establishes its existence as a mere historical opinion.

It is based on faith, but on the faith that God would have his people preserve the authenticity of the apostles' witness through their unbroken chain of testimony. This is a Spirit-led organic process that never requires the "judgement" by an "authority" of men.

---

You say it doesn't take judgment, authority, or proof to pass along knowledge of authorship. Perhaps not in theory. But in reality, many people acting in good faith didn't fully receive that knowledge until the Church made its judgment. Some people rejected books that are canon, and some accepted books that are not. There's just no getting around the fact that someone had to rule on the issue in order for it to be truly settled.

---

But obviously, whatever "judgement" or "ruling" you believe we are submitting to, we aren't. Otherwise, we'd have the same Bible as you. Which we don't. A fact you guys keep forgetting.

Another fact you keep overlooking is that the Church's recognition of the authorship of Scripture was fully dependent/contingent upon the witness of those believers before them. Which was dependent on those before them. All the way back to the original church who could vouch for them firsthand. The "ruling" of the Church that you accept, therefore, was nothing more than another link in the chain of witness, not an act of "authority". In other words, we can know that the New Testament was authored/sourced by the original apostles because of this unbroken chain of testimony from the entire body of Christ throughout history, not because of the "ruling" by an institutional body.

Remember, this is an argument about authorship, i.e. the ability to reliably link Scripture to the apostles, not about canonization, which you seem to blending in. The fact remains that while Scripture can be traced back to the apostles (a historical argument, not by authoritative decree), non-biblical tradition can not.

---

That you recognize the Catholic NT but not the OT is a weakness in your position, not mine. If the Church's judgment and your ethereal chain of testimony were destined to agree in the one case, they should have agreed in both.

As I've pointed out, the argument is not about authorship per se. Authorship by the Apostles was important, but it was never the sole criterion for canonicity.

It is true that we recognize Scripture because of an unbroken chain of witnesses. It's also true that we recognize that unbroken chain of witnesses because of the Church's judgment. There was disagreement, and like it or not, a different judgment would have given us a different Bible.

---

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. Agreement in one does not automatically mean agreement in both. Where you conjured up this bad logic is complete mystery. And the weakness is in YOUR position, given that neither Jewish nor early church history, which we have clear evidence of, included the deuterocanon in the canon of OT Scripture.

The argument IS about authorship. That was your whole claim:

You (above): "Neither can you prove that the extant writings of the Apostles came from the Apostles themselves. You're relying on the Church's judgment, just like everyone else."

I've noticed that you Catholics seem to easily lose track of the train of thought. I'm having to constantly steer you guys back to the relevant discussion.

You're merely going in circles now, reiterating your claim that the unbroken chain of witness is a product of the Roman Catholic Church's judgement. No it isn't. It exists by its own merit, not because your Church declared it to have existed. That's why Protestants can reject your Church's "judgement" about the deuterocanon. A different judgement (the correct one) DID give us different Bibles. And there's no reason to believe that had the Roman Catholic Church accepted a false, Gnostic gospel, that the true people of God would have rejected it. We did it for the deuterocanon, so why wouldn't do it for any other false addition?

---

No, my whole claim has never been about authorship. That's your claim, and it's obviously untenable since the Apostles were not the sole source of the canon.

Again, the chain of witnesses does exist by its own merit. It's our knowledge that is the product of the Church's judgment. You can't seem to see the epistemological issue, but it doesn't go away.

---

I JUST QUOTED YOU above. Seriously??

Are you seriously this desnse and/or dishonest? Do you really think you can gas light people like this? MY GOD.

---

The answer to your questions is yes. He's nothing more than a troll at this point, who lies and mischaracterizes to suit his purpose.

You're not dealing with a guy who believes in the same God you and I, and actual Christians do.

Pearls before swine.