BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

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 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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

He keeps dancing around it, but obviously in the same way the Church did. While some texts are very easy to recognize as canon (the Gospels, Acts., etc...) there was debate within the church and the Church about texts on the margins. And since his entire position falls apart if he acknowledges that the same processes led to different conclusions, he has to back himself into declaring that his are the true of people of God and yours are not. So while he wants to maintain an air of just following the facts and that this is all objective observable truth, he can't see he is actually making a faith based argument. Effectively just an elaborate "no true Scot"....

And we haven't even discussed the practical reality that the canon cannot possibly be locked until it has been fully written. Thus, the sola scriptura of the church when only 25% of the canon has been drafted would be different from the sola scriptura of the church once 66% of the canon has been drafted. So which church (and more importantly when) is it precisely that received the definitive, authoritative, sola scriptura? And which church do are we referring to when we talk about the NT church? Was it around 100 AD? And then we can discuss the practical reality that words received orally are interpreted much differently than words received on paper (you can start with tone and inflection leading to emphasis), so the sola scriptura of the early church would be different from the sola scriptura of the literate church. And then we can talk about the practical reality that assembling scrolls into a singular codex that seems to be mostly chronological will change the way you receive the Word of God from the old way and the sola scriptura of the old way would be different from the sola scriptura of newer church. And then we can talk about the practical reality that when the Church added a chapter and verse indexing system, it dramatically changed the way the faithful interact with and respond to the Word of God (there is a reason why Jesus and the Apostles make broad references to the scriptures, rather than citing chapter and verse....).

And after you notice all these problems and you look at the OT and the verses, it almost seems like the most sensical approach designed by God and the Holy Spirit is to establish a deposit of the faith.....

Also: I really hope we find out that his hatred of all things Catholic and his alluded desire to live precisely as the NT church has led him to eschew the use of a Bibles with chapter and verse references.

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 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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

DallasBear9902 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 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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

He keeps dancing around it, but obviously in the same way the Church did. While some texts are very easy to recognize as canon (the Gospels, Acts., etc...) there was debate within the church and the Church about texts on the margins. And since his entire position falls apart if he acknowledges that the same processes led to different conclusions, he has to back himself into declaring that his are the true of people of God and yours are not. So while he wants to maintain an air of just following the facts and that this is all objective observable truth, he can't see he is actually making a faith based argument. Effectively just an elaborate "no true Scot"....

And we haven't even discussed the practical reality that the canon cannot possibly be locked until it has been fully written. Thus, the sola scriptura of the church when only 25% of the canon has been drafted would be different from the sola scriptura of the church once 66% of the canon has been drafted. So which church (and more importantly when) is it precisely that received the definitive, authoritative, sola scriptura? And which church do are we referring to when we talk about the NT church? Was it around 100 AD? And then we can discuss the practical reality that words received orally are interpreted much differently than words received on paper (you can start with tone and inflection leading to emphasis), so the sola scriptura of the early church would be different from the sola scriptura of the literate church. And then we can talk about the practical reality that assembling scrolls into a singular codex that seems to be mostly chronological will change the way you receive the Word of God from the old way and the sola scriptura of the old way would be different from the sola scriptura of newer church. And then we can talk about the practical reality that when the Church added a chapter and verse indexing system, it dramatically changed the way the faithful interact with and respond to the Word of God (there is a reason why Jesus and the Apostles make broad references to the scriptures, rather than citing chapter and verse....).

And after you notice all these problems and you look at the OT and the verses, it almost seems like the most sensical approach designed by God and the Holy Spirit is to establish a deposit of the faith.....

Also: I really hope we find out that his hatred of all things Catholic and his alluded desire to live precisely as the NT church has led him to eschew the use of a Bibles with chapter and verse references.

---

No one is "dancing around" anything. Might I suggest, rather, that you being a Roman Catholic, it's all just going over your head because you're programmed only to accept the party line of Roman Catholicism - "We the Roman Catholic Church gave you the Bible", "sola scriptura is false" - and any valid fact or reasoning counter to it is simply rejected or blocked out of consciousness? That seems to be the running pattern with every Roman Catholic I talk with here.

The "Church" did not give us the Bible. GOD gave us the Bible. The church (little c) recognized it and received it. This is the concept that you guys just have a hard time grasping.

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 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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

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 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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

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 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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

---

I'm not making those arguments at all. We have a historical record, but it isn't infallible. And again, apostolicity was never the sole and simple criterion.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

---

I'm not making those arguments at all. We have a historical record, but it isn't infallible. And again, apostolicity was never the sole and simple criterion.

---

Apostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition.

Seriously, do you get a kick out of looking stupid and/or dishonest like this? We already know how you flat out lie about what you did or didn't argue, EVEN when your own posts are quoted back to you. So what do you think you're accomplishing? You're only demonstrating how Roman Catholics can so easily be led by a spirit of darkness.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

---

I'm not making those arguments at all. We have a historical record, but it isn't infallible. And again, apostolicity was never the sole and simple criterion.

---

Apostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition.

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

---

I'm not making those arguments at all. We have a historical record, but it isn't infallible. And again, apostolicity was never the sole and simple criterion.

---

Apostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition.

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

---

I'm not making those arguments at all. We have a historical record, but it isn't infallible. And again, apostolicity was never the sole and simple criterion.

---

Apostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition.

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

---

I'm not making those arguments at all. We have a historical record, but it isn't infallible. And again, apostolicity was never the sole and simple criterion.

---

Apostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition.

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI understand the difference between the capital and lower-case concepts. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Widely recognized, sure. But there was still significant controversy over many of the books, and it had to be resolved somehow. Until then no one was in any position to proclaim "sola scriptura!"

---

Regardless of any controversy, still, the resolution and eventual acceptance of those books were based on their inherent characteristics - apostolicity, widespread use and acceptance, orthodox doctrine, etc - which are each independently verifiable and determinable by the church, apart from any official decree by the Church.

We don't say that the book of Hebrews, for instance, is Scripture because the Roman Catholic Church says so. We say it is because of those aforementioned characteristics. In other words, there is convergence i.e. agreement on the "judgement" over what is canon scripture, not a "reliance" of a judgement of one by the other. Similarly, we don't say that the Gnostic gospel of Thomas is Scripture because Rome rejected it. We say that it isn't scripture because it lacks apostolicity, was not widely accepted, and most importantly it contained teachings antithetical to the known teachings of the original apostles.

In other words, the Church only formalized the recognition of a canon that the church is able to recognize and accepts on its own through the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the beginning and still is able to today.

---

How did the lower-case church independently verify and determine these facts, and where is the evidence that it did so?

---

Verifi-able. Meaning that these facts are independently verifiable or falsifiable based on their own merits, and do not need to be established as fact by a revelatory "ruling" from a council. The church's recognition and reception of the writings based on their original apostolicity was dependent on their first hand witness, NOT based on any "ruling". Their widespread acceptance by the church was a natural outcome of their established apostolicity, and is also verifiable as a fact of its own, not by a "ruling". The orthodoxy of the teachings in other writings is a verifiable quality that only requires objective comparison to the writings of the original apostles. It also does not depend on any "ruling".

Your question highlights your continued misconception, intentional or not, regarding how we got our Bible. You're continually wanting to put the cart in front of the horse, because that's what your Church tells you to think - because that's how the Church makes its play for authority. The fact remains that it was the Church that was reliant upon the witness and testimony of the church to know which writings were Scripture, NOT the other way around.

---

It was largely the witness and testimony of the church, yet there was disagreement, and the Church had to resolve it. Is it possible that the Church got it wrong in some respects? If so, your canon isn't infallible. If not, you're relying on an infallible judgment.

---

On what basis did the Church "resolve" the disagreements? By new, special, infallible revelatory judgment, or based on the previous witness and judgement of the church that preceded them, and based on objectively verifiable or falsifiable criteria? And if we agree with their "judgement", is it because of their "authority" or because of the correctness of their reasoning?

The Church DID get it wrong, as I keep saying with the deuterocanon. Not to mention your Church didn't even agree with itself in its own councils and in its own history regarding the canon. And you keep erroneously insisting that "my" canon was reliant upon your Church's ruling authority, when I've established that it's clearly not. Repeating the lie over and over is not going to make it true. So the infallibility or fallibility of "my" canon is not at stake here.

---

Historians make judgments based on objective criteria all the time. None of those judgments are infallible. They could always change based on new information or analysis. So the infallibility of your canon is very much at stake.

Christ promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, but that didn't happen automatically. Otherwise there would have been no need for councils to debate and decide what was true. Our assurance that the canon is more than the product of historical opinion (however well founded) rests on those decisions.

---

My canon was not at stake with regard to the argument you were making. You were arguing that the Church decided my canon, which it did not. Therefore, whatever fallibility there is in your Church's canon, it has no bearing on fallibility of the church's ("my") canon.

Everything you're arguing about the fallibility of human judgement applies to your Church and its councils as well. Regardless, your fallibility argument is completely irrelevant to the the two claims you've made so far: 1) Scripture can't be linked to the original apostles without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church, and 2) knowledge of what is the canon of Scripture also can't be known without the judgement and ruling authority of your Church - both which are clearly and demonstrably false.

---

I'm not making those arguments at all. We have a historical record, but it isn't infallible. And again, apostolicity was never the sole and simple criterion.

---

Apostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition.

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

So since the truth of it is based on the facts and reason themselves rather than by mere authoritative declaration, the knowledge of a writing's apostolicity can be derived independent of a Church's official ruling or judgement, contrary to your claim. Thank you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

So since the truth of it is based on the facts and reason themselves rather than by mere authoritative declaration, the knowledge of a writing's apostolicity can be derived independent of a Church's official ruling or judgement, contrary to your claim. Thank you.

---

It can be derived in your opinion, but certainly not infallibly. You never know when new evidence might call it into question.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

So since the truth of it is based on the facts and reason themselves rather than by mere authoritative declaration, the knowledge of a writing's apostolicity can be derived independent of a Church's official ruling or judgement, contrary to your claim. Thank you.

---

It can be derived in your opinion, but certainly not infallibly. You never know when new evidence might call it into question.

---

Completely irrelevant to the fact that your claim was proven wrong. Have the humility to accept and admit it, instead of trying to move the goalposts.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

So since the truth of it is based on the facts and reason themselves rather than by mere authoritative declaration, the knowledge of a writing's apostolicity can be derived independent of a Church's official ruling or judgement, contrary to your claim. Thank you.

---

It can be derived in your opinion, but certainly not infallibly. You never know when new evidence might call it into question.

---

Completely irrelevant to the fact that your claim was proven wrong. Have the humility to accept and admit it, instead of trying to move the goalposts.

---

We are back where we started. Historical opinion is just that.

Fre3dombear said:

---

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?

---

Glad to hear I am not condemned to eternal damnation, as you suggested before.

So only people who are "sinless" go to Heaven? That's interesting. What sinless people do you know?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

So since the truth of it is based on the facts and reason themselves rather than by mere authoritative declaration, the knowledge of a writing's apostolicity can be derived independent of a Church's official ruling or judgement, contrary to your claim. Thank you.

---

It can be derived in your opinion, but certainly not infallibly. You never know when new evidence might call it into question.

---

Completely irrelevant to the fact that your claim was proven wrong. Have the humility to accept and admit it, instead of trying to move the goalposts.

---

We are back where we started. Historical opinion is just that.

---

No, that's you moving the goalposts and digging to get out of a hole because of your pride. The unbroken chain of witness is a historical fact that even your Church depended on to make it's "ruling". Any attempt to weaken it into a mere "opinion" only makes your Church's ruling just as fallible as you are trying to make the Protestant position. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. It's really telling is that you'd rather destroy your own Church than to acknowledge that your Church was wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

So since the truth of it is based on the facts and reason themselves rather than by mere authoritative declaration, the knowledge of a writing's apostolicity can be derived independent of a Church's official ruling or judgement, contrary to your claim. Thank you.

---

It can be derived in your opinion, but certainly not infallibly. You never know when new evidence might call it into question.

---

Completely irrelevant to the fact that your claim was proven wrong. Have the humility to accept and admit it, instead of trying to move the goalposts.

---

We are back where we started. Historical opinion is just that.

---

No, that's you moving the goalposts and digging to get out of a hole because of your pride. The unbroken chain of witness is a historical fact that even your Church depended on to make it's "ruling". Any attempt to weaken it into a mere "opinion" only makes your Church's ruling just as fallible as you are trying to make the Protestant position. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. It's really telling is that you'd rather destroy your own Church than to acknowledge that your Church was wrong.

---

You're not hearing what I'm saying. I'll let you deliver your last round of insults and we'll call it a day.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryApostolicity was the sole and simple criterion for linking the writings to the apostles. It's the literal definition. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but not everything in the NT came from the Apostles. Do we disagree on this?

---

You're running away from the point - you agree that apostolicity is the sole criterion for linking a writing to an apostles, and you did argue this:

"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."

Do you agree that this is false, because the apostolicity of those writings is known by the unbroken chain of witness that goes back to the first Christians who heard from the apostles first hand, rather than by a Church council ruling, i.e. "judgement"?

---

It is known in the same way that other historical events are known, i.e. contingently and subject to revision.

---

So you're agreeing that it's known by history rather than by a "ruling" or "judgement" by the Church?

---

Not rather than, but in addition to. The judgment of the Church is what resolved the doubts and disputes to which history is always subject.

---

Were there any disputes as to the unbroken chain of witness regarding the apostolicity of those writings? And if so, on what basis did they "resolve" such disputes? By the objective facts and objective reasoning - thus, by your own assertion, "contingently and subject to revision", i.e. fallible - or rather by special "authority" to decide regardless of the facts?

---

Like all judicial decisions, it was based on facts and reason while also carrying authority. This is an important point, so think before you dismiss it as double-talk or whatever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

---

So since the truth of it is based on the facts and reason themselves rather than by mere authoritative declaration, the knowledge of a writing's apostolicity can be derived independent of a Church's official ruling or judgement, contrary to your claim. Thank you.

---

It can be derived in your opinion, but certainly not infallibly. You never know when new evidence might call it into question.

---

Completely irrelevant to the fact that your claim was proven wrong. Have the humility to accept and admit it, instead of trying to move the goalposts.

---

We are back where we started. Historical opinion is just that.

---

No, that's you moving the goalposts and digging to get out of a hole because of your pride. The unbroken chain of witness is a historical fact that even your Church depended on to make it's "ruling". Any attempt to weaken it into a mere "opinion" only makes your Church's ruling just as fallible as you are trying to make the Protestant position. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. It's really telling is that you'd rather destroy your own Church than to acknowledge that your Church was wrong.

---

You're not hearing what I'm saying. I'll let you deliver your last round of insults and we'll call it a day.

---

Yes, I've heard all your goalpost moving. We even saw you blatantly lie. The overall point was that Scripture can be shown to be apostolic. Your Church's and the Orthodox's oral traditions can not. Your attempt to show that we can only know Scripture is apostolic because of the "judgement" of the Church has been shown to be false. It matters none if you want to call it an "opinion" that we must have "faith" in, that faith still does not depend on any judgement by your Church any more than on your Church being just another link in the chain of witness, but rather on the facts themselves.

Sola scriptura is a true concept for us today, not while Christians in the first century were still relying on the spoken word of the apostles while Scripture was in the process of being written down. Because all that we have today that we know came from the apostles now that they are gone, is in Scripture, and nowhere else. If anyone claims that there are oral traditions that came from the apostles that is NOT in Scripture, this claim can not be established historically like Scripture can. It must be accepted purely as a "judgement" or declaration by the RC and Orthodox churches, devoid of any historical evidence. In fact, even if counter to the historical evidence (see icon veneration). Ask them to prove the link of the oral tradition historically to the apostle, and they can't.

This is why Roman Catholics and Orthodox have to try to do what Sam tried to do above - claim that the apostolicity of the writings in Scripture is just as dependent on their Church's judgement and declaration as oral tradition is. And therefore, they try to reason, if we believe in Scripture being the preserved word of the apostles, then we must also believe that oral tradition is too. This has shown to be utterly false and deceptive. While apostolicity of the writings is based on the historically documented, unbroken chain of witness starting from the very beginning, their oral tradition is not. This is their sleight of hand, their "Trojan horse" fallacy that has deceived many Roman Catholics into their false traditions, like frogs in hot water. They have gotten to the point where their followers will accept the crediting of Mary for their salvation, bowing and praying to her, and elevating her stature and characteristics to that of Jesus (Marian dogmas) and everything else I've exposed as rank heresy and idolatry - and not even bat an eye. Even more, they will defend such heretical and idolatrous beliefs to their grave. It is absolute wickedness.

I'm calling on any and all Roman Catholics and Orthodox to understand this, to wake up from your slumber, and to open your eyes to realize you've been bamboozled into heresy and idolatry. If you truly are a believer in Jesus, then you have the Holy Spirit, and you likely DID bat an eye at all this. It likely did, or does bother you. I implore you to probe that instead of ignore it, with honesty and with a heart of seeking the truth.

"Come out of her, my people,
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues"

- Revelation 18:4

Anyone want to try my question that's been dodged?

If the Roman Catholic/Orthodox "magisterium" were to declare that murder, rape, and gay marriage were now all blessed by God, could you determine for yourself that they were wrong? If so, then on what basis, and by what authority?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone want to try my question that's been dodged?

If the Roman Catholic/Orthodox "magisterium" were to declare that murder, rape, and gay marriage were now all blessed by God, could you determine for yourself that they were wrong? If so, then on what basis, and by what authority?

---

It's an easy question if you understand the idea of the magisterium. It isn't simply a person or group of people, but the teaching authority of the Church and the body of its authoritative teachings. They have already declared these things to be wrong. No contrary teaching would be magisterial.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone want to try my question that's been dodged?

If the Roman Catholic/Orthodox "magisterium" were to declare that murder, rape, and gay marriage were now all blessed by God, could you determine for yourself that they were wrong? If so, then on what basis, and by what authority?

---

It's an easy question if you understand the idea of the magisterium. It isn't simply a person or group of people, but the teaching authority of the Church and the body of its authoritative teachings. They have already declared these things to be wrong. No contrary teaching would be magisterial.

---

Suppose they didn't already formally declare them to be wrong - or, they're declaring that while it was wrong before, it is no longer wrong now. What then would your answer be?

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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?

---

Glad to hear I am not condemned to eternal damnation, as you suggested before.

So only people who are "sinless" go to Heaven? That's interesting. What sinless people do you know?

---

"Straight to Heaven" if sinless. Otherwise Purgatory and then to Heaven

Mary Mother of God

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone want to try my question that's been dodged?

If the Roman Catholic/Orthodox "magisterium" were to declare that murder, rape, and gay marriage were now all blessed by God, could you determine for yourself that they were wrong? If so, then on what basis, and by what authority?

---

It's an easy question if you understand the idea of the magisterium. It isn't simply a person or group of people, but the teaching authority of the Church and the body of its authoritative teachings. They have already declared these things to be wrong. No contrary teaching would be magisterial.

---

Suppose they didn't already formally declare them to be wrong - or, they're declaring that while it was wrong before, it is no longer wrong now. What then would your answer be?

---

Sam? Did a light bulb finally go off?

Sam: " Mary Mother of God"

Odd signature you have there ...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone want to try my question that's been dodged?

If the Roman Catholic/Orthodox "magisterium" were to declare that murder, rape, and gay marriage were now all blessed by God, could you determine for yourself that they were wrong? If so, then on what basis, and by what authority?

---

It's an easy question if you understand the idea of the magisterium. It isn't simply a person or group of people, but the teaching authority of the Church and the body of its authoritative teachings. They have already declared these things to be wrong. No contrary teaching would be magisterial.

---

Suppose they didn't already formally declare them to be wrong - or, they're declaring that while it was wrong before, it is no longer wrong now. What then would your answer be?

---

Sam? Did a light bulb finally go off?

---

The answer is that it wouldn't matter. Those doctrines have been settled by the ordinary magisterium, meaning the everyday teaching of the bishops in union with the pope. What was intrinsically wrong before will always be so.