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.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yup, you could be his twin brother, ironically from the opposing side on this issue.

For the record, I am very much flawed and have said so in the past. The people who mock me for such admission are, I submit, equally flawed but completely unwilling to admit so, as their pride will not allow it.

I have also quoted Scripture and tried to gently remind certain malcontents of better options, but again their pride demands they punish anyone who presents an unpleasant truth in their presence.

---

You appear to be one of the more humble Protestant Christians on this board. Takes courage around here to admit that and for that I commend you.

There are several here that know the ways of the judgement of God and have pronounced said judgement many times. Mothra sent me to hell yet again today.

---

So, this is what you said to me right before I "pronounced judgment" on you.

"Your post above will likely play before your eyes as you hopefully head to Purgatory and the Catholics will pray for your soul."

I say this with all due respect - you are a really stupid person. I mean, really stupid. Anyone with such an incredible blind spot for their own behavior, while accusing others of doing exactly what they did the post prior, is just a moron.

---

Take a breath big guy. You prove yet again this is quite literally the most uneducated Protestant Christian board I post on.

Youre spiking a football by quoting me saying youre going to Heaven while also YET AGAIN resorting to junior high name calling

Thank you kind sir for YET AGAIN proving my point. Lmao

My sincere apologies for suggesting youre going to Heaven and that Catholics will pray for you (again, if you didnt know, which we shoukd all assume you dont, means you are NOT in hell). So yeah, the exact opposite of what you did and without calling you a single name too. Raise it up a little or just step aside.

Lmao. Thanks for the full throated chuckle reading this as I head off to pray to God and say a few Hail Marys.

Enjoy Divine Mercy Sunday. Prayers sir. Take a breath or something might pop if you keep getting too emotional

That was quite entertaining . Lmao

---

You've told me repeatedly for years that I am unsaved, and my only hope is purgatory, and you now allege this is a post in which you said I am going to Heaven?

LOL. As I said, you're an absolute lying moron and full of crap.

---

Lmao. Going full trump. Woke up just like you retired. This called S Y A with the name calling and emotional meltdown.

Simma down Buttercup. It's going to be ok. You're clearly misinformed but thats been noted for some time in these threads.

Happy Divine Mercy Sunday. Jesus I trust in you!

Time to disengage. You seem Unstable.

All the best and prayers always. Purgatory is your only path to Heaven. And you will be prayed for by Catholics even when in purgatory until purified.

---

LOL. More projection.

I am curious, why do you believe I am now saved? What makes you think I am going to Heaven, after years of pronouncing otherwise?

Let's see if you can express yourself cogently and unemotionally.

Good luck!

---

Ive disengaged from the emotional instability. Moving on. Prayers for your journey as always. Too risky engaging with people screaming and name calling at people versus calmly discussing their opinion of their interpretation versus 2,000 years of history.

---

Translation: I know what I just said is utterly false bull **** so instead of trying to defend my lie, I'll tuck tail and run.

I get it. If I lied with the impunity that you do, I'd probably tuck tail and run as well.

---

Trying to paper over your epic childish name calling no defense meltdown still i see. Will not engage with loose cannons capable of such.

Just own it big guy. The more wrong you are the more you emote. Same as always.

---

More obfuscation to distract from the fact what you said was utter bull ****, and you are unable to defend it.

If you get brave enough to explain why you now, suddenly believe I am destined for Heaven instead of Hades, let me know.

---

Yoooooooo internet keyboard warrior dude. Now that I've permitted a cooling off period I guess Ive mustered up some bravery lol. Why yall always do that silliness and abandon defense of your faith and ideals is eternally entertaining.

1) never suddenly changed anything

2) why are you seeking my opinion or approval of your eternal fate?

3) i would never judge anyone's eternal residence. No clue where you are heading. I hope to see everyone in Heaven some day. It's why I do what I do and pop into this confused den from time to time. That is up to God where you will head based on what you in your soul force Him to do.

You either go to hell, straight to Heaven if sinless or if God has deemed your temporal punishment as penance for your sins, or to Purgatory

4) in fact Ive argued here even someone who commits suicide or Hitler etc could be in Heaven. Fortunately for them as for you, my opinion on that matters not, but even one drop of Christ's blood is enough to save eternally every soul that has lived

Jesus' mercy is infinite as is his justice. We prefer his mercy over his justice

Go with God. Be well. Keep the faith

Shared With extreme bravery…

Btw do you know the differences of Hades, hell, limbo etc? The words in the creed of near 2,000 years and what words chosen and why that we say repeatedly?

historian said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

historian said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

historian said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

historian said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

historian said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

historian said:

---

So was Jesus speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic while on the cross? The book of Genesis was originally in Hebrew but Aramaic was more common at the time of Christ. One of His statements from the cross was Aramaic, as the gospels say so explicitly (when he quoted the Psalm).

Regardless, there is nothing in scripture that suggests the worship of Mary. She was still human and a sinner. Worshipping her would be idolatry which is expressly prohibited over and over again in the scriptures.

We can honor her as an honored woman chosen by God for a special purpose in much the same way we honor Moses, David, or Ruth. But that's as far as it goes.

---

What religion worships Mary?

---

Hopefully no one. But anyone who prays to her is engaging in an act of worship.

---

Asking Mary mother of God to pray for us is not worship to anyone but a Protestant Christian

---

You missed the point. There is no reason to pray to anyone except God Himself. Prayer is a former of worship to whom it is directed. And it's not the same as asking a friend to pray for you.

---

Then why even waste the time asking a friend to also
Pray for you? You could have used those milliseconds just talking directly to God? See how this works by your own logic?

It's the Protestant Christians burden to prove their circular illogical belief.

---

Again it's not the same thing! Asking a friend to pray FOR you is perfectly consistent with Christ's teachings. In fact, we are commanded to pray FOR one another. And the prayers of multiple people has an impact. I know from personal experience that when many people were praying for me my life improved. It's part of God's plan and perfectly consistent with His second greatest commandment: love your neighbor as yourself.

But praying TO someone other than God is idolatry, an act of worship of someone who is NOT God. We don't even pray to angels and they are constantly in the presence of God and have been since long before humans were created.

You are using one logical fallacy after another to argue in favor of something you should know is false, unless you are a troll and get your jollies from lies and deception.

---

Catholics dont pray TO anyone. It's called intercessory prayer.

---

Christian's pray TO God and no one else. Intercessory prayer is when one prays FOR someone else.

---

God is not anyone. Obviously. Everything must be spoonfed. Mary is asked for intercessionary prayer. Stated a million times as is any saint.

You clearly dont understand the word latria

---

I can ask a friend to pray for me. That's intercessory prayer. Jesus even intercedes for us, because we know Him. But it makes no sense to ask someone who died 2,000 years ago to pray for us, especially when we pray directly to God and ask our closest friends and relatives to pray for us. There is a personal connection. No one alive today has any connection to the person of Mary. It's impossible.

Clearly, I don't use Latin in everyday speech. After all, it is a dead language of limited use today. This does not mean I don't understand the concept, not that I've seen you mention it above.
And not all Catholics treat Mary that way. Some pray directly to her, making requests that should go only to God.

---

This is not the teaching of the 2,000 year old faith and the Bible

historian said:

---

For a thread that began on January 1 with a title placing Mary on an equal footing with Jesus, it has gone through all kinds of variations and seems to have accomplished little. The Catholics are proselytizing their position and Christian's of other faiths state theirs and there seems to be little common ground after 3.5 months of a debate that's been going on for centuries.

Go figure!

---

Thats not what the thread title did in any way and was explained to Mothra annd others that misunderstood alteady swveral times.

What is has exposed is those that cannot defend positions and lash out and commit sin against their fellow man.

Always an opportunity to Grow and get better and smarter and less emotional.

And look at the massive engagement! God works in mysterious ways

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 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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

Mothra 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.

---

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.

---

I'm finding that the Roman Catholics I've talked to each resort to some kind of tactic in order to get out of corner I back them in. They either lie, gaslight, avoid answering questions, personally attack me, or do what this weird fella FreedomBear does, they "block" me. FreedomBear goes the extra mile and engages in a campaign of arrogantly and vociferously touting the correctness of his beliefs and the falseness of others as a defense mechanism to cover for the inadequacies of his positions. It's a form of self-therapy through self-affirmation. His blocking me is nothing more than the immature defense mechanism of avoidance. I hope that these are signs that they realize the problems with their beliefs, even if only at a subconscious level. It has to start somewhere.

Yes it is

You have a point: there has been engagement, mostly civil, and God does work in mysterious ways.

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 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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

Here's where your flawed argument centers around your equivocation of the concept of "church".

I trust the church's witness and judgement involving the canon. I don't trust the Church's witness and judgement involving the canon.

That's for you to figure out.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact.

---

The "Church" doesn't establish facts of history. Facts of history establishes facts of history.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

I think the question you really should be asking is why your Church didn't even trust the Church's judgement regarding the OT.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

Here's where your flawed argument centers around your equivocation of the concept of "church".

I trust the church's witness and judgement involving the canon. I don't trust the Church's witness and judgement involving the canon.

That's for you to figure out.

---

I understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact.

---

The "Church" doesn't establish facts of history. Facts of history establishes facts of history.

---

If that were true then all facts would be known and none would be disputed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact.

---

The "Church" doesn't establish facts of history. Facts of history establishes facts of history.

---

If that were true then all facts would be known and none would be disputed.

---

Well, part of the problem is the habit of various Popes to pronounce 'facts' not supported by Scripture, just human conceit.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

Here's where your flawed argument centers around your equivocation of the concept of "church".

I trust the church's witness and judgement involving the canon. I don't trust the Church's witness and judgement involving the canon.

That's for you to figure out.

---

I understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts.

---

This is why you are not a serious person and you get no respect here.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact.

---

The "Church" doesn't establish facts of history. Facts of history establishes facts of history.

---

If that were true then all facts would be known and none would be disputed.

---

Whether a fact is a fact is not dependent on whether it is known, or disputed or not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact.

---

The "Church" doesn't establish facts of history. Facts of history establishes facts of history.

---

If that were true then all facts would be known and none would be disputed.

---

Whether a fact is a fact is not dependent on whether it is known, or disputed or not.

---

No disagreement here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

Here's where your flawed argument centers around your equivocation of the concept of "church".

I trust the church's witness and judgement involving the canon. I don't trust the Church's witness and judgement involving the canon.

That's for you to figure out.

---

I understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts.

---

This is why you are not a serious person and you get no respect here.

---

I understand the difference between the concept denoted by the word "church" and the concept denoted by the word "Church."

Better?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

Here's where your flawed argument centers around your equivocation of the concept of "church".

I trust the church's witness and judgement involving the canon. I don't trust the Church's witness and judgement involving the canon.

That's for you to figure out.

---

I understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts.

---

This is why you are not a serious person and you get no respect here.

---

I understand the difference between the concept denoted by the word "church" and the concept denoted by the word "Church."

Better?

---

It'd be better if you actually incorporated that understanding into your positions and stopped equivocating. The Church isn't the church. The authorship of the New Testament is known from the church, not the Church. The canon is given by God and recognized and recieved by the church, not recognized and received by the Church to be given to the church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

Here's where your flawed argument centers around your equivocation of the concept of "church".

I trust the church's witness and judgement involving the canon. I don't trust the Church's witness and judgement involving the canon.

That's for you to figure out.

---

I understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts.

---

This is why you are not a serious person and you get no respect here.

---

I understand the difference between the concept denoted by the word "church" and the concept denoted by the word "Church."

Better?

---

It'd be better if you actually incorporated that understanding into your positions and stopped equivocating. The Church isn't the church. The authorship of the New Testament is known from the church, not the Church. The canon is given by God and recognized and recieved by the church, not recognized and received by the Church to be given to the church.

---

Except that it wasn't fully recognized and received by the church until the Church gave it. That's the historical fact that keeps getting in the way of your dogma.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're still arguing canonization, which the argument was not about. You argued that I could not link the writings of the New Testament to the original apostles without relying on your Church's authoritative "judgement" that it was so. I explained how this is false. That was the whole discussion. Anyone can go back and see this for themselves.

You started to shift your argument towards canonization, because you realized that you were losing the argument about authorship. Then I steered you back towards your original argument, which you then denied. It's all on record. (Btw, you'd lose the argument about canonization too. It's essentially the same argument).

I can only hope that this is a lesson for you, that it's better just to stop digging when you're in a hole. I'm much more gracious to those who just admit they're wrong, than those who try ridiculous schemes to save face. Because you can actually have a rational discussion with the former, but not with the latter.

---

I don't know where all these twists and turns came from, but you're right about one thing. It is essentially the same argument.

---

Essentially the same, but it involves more "judgement" than the historical argument for authorship. That's why you shifted to try that angle. But it's a flawed argument in the same way. The "judgement" about what was God's word was made by the entirety of the body of Christ throughout history rather than by a formal authoritative decree from a council. If the latter were true and we are relying upon that judgement, then we'd have the same Bible as you. But we don't. So it isn't.

---

I don't know what you're on about with your shifting angles. We have the same NT, which was delivered to us by a chain of witnesses, and we know this because the Church established the fact. Why you don't trust the Church's judgment regarding the OT is for you to figure out.

---

Here's where your flawed argument centers around your equivocation of the concept of "church".

I trust the church's witness and judgement involving the canon. I don't trust the Church's witness and judgement involving the canon.

That's for you to figure out.

---

I understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts.

---

This is why you are not a serious person and you get no respect here.

---

I understand the difference between the concept denoted by the word "church" and the concept denoted by the word "Church."

Better?

---

It'd be better if you actually incorporated that understanding into your positions and stopped equivocating. The Church isn't the church. The authorship of the New Testament is known from the church, not the Church. The canon is given by God and recognized and recieved by the church, not recognized and received by the Church to be given to the church.

---

Except that it wasn't fully recognized and received by the church until the Church gave it. That's the historical fact that keeps getting in the way of your dogma.

---

This is the lie that your Church keeps telling the church. The church had already fully accepted the OT and the vast majority of the New Testament long before the Church said so. Whatever remaining books that the Church formally recognized had already been widely recognized and received by the church as well, and each writing was determined by the church to be canon not by fiat from the Church, but based on a Spirit-led discernment of the writings' own inherent characteristics, recognizable to the church as having been given to them by God, not the Church.

And again, obviously the fact that always gets in the way of your dogma is that the church didn't receive the canon from your Church, because we don't have the same Bible.