It's time for war
Yes, the ECF - some of them, like the ones living in and around Rome, would quote that long ending. They are the ones who had the long ending. The others did not, so you won't find them quoting it.
Please don't attempt to tell me that I am wrong and that I am free to be. Historical documents show that your dates are not in evidence, so it is entirely possible that you are wrong.
However, since you gave me permission to go along with all the biblical historians that say that you are wrong, I'll go with them. Thank you.
It's time for war
I have some other references that serve to prove their invalidity, but they are long and can seem dry to many. The simple fact is that textual criticism denies their originality, and their content denies their Divine Inspiration.
You must be getting irritated, my brother. You are now jumping to conclusions and making statements are that are not valid.
"Any textual critic" does not say those things. There are many bibles out there written by teams of translators (last count showed the over 500 of them have been involved since 1607, and there are probably more) that have footnotes about the long ending of Mark and the adulteress being dragged before Jesus. There are not footnotes about the book of Daniel not being valid, nor are there any remarks that tell us that the Book of John was not written by John.
Besides, I have found nothing in those books that run counter to what the rest of the Bible teaches either.
If you are willing to accept any book as valid, then you have more than 66 books in your bible, right?
And let us get one other thing perfectly clear: I do not use a Canon of Scripture to which books have been added. You use a Canon of Scripture of which books have been subtracted. I use the full Canon of Scripture that God delivered to His Church. You use a truncated version of that Canon. All of the Bibles that pre-date Luther -- and there are many -- contain the entire and full Canon. All of them. No exceptions. Now, what does the Bible say about subtracting from the Scriptures?
Well, perhaps the fact that nobody had ever determined which books were written by those who were either disciples of Jesus or their companions before, we had too many books and they taught conflicting theology. The story of that determination is interesting, but I just believe that you won't approve. I don't think you and I disagree about much, but those few issues are certainly not worth fighting over.
The Canon was determined around 380 by Augustine of Hippo, and finalized in 405 by Pope Damasus, and no other Canon was used until Martin Luther. If you want to believe that God allowed His Church to have "too many books" and "conflicting theology" for 1200 years until Luther came along, that is between you and God. I personally find such an idea not only preposterous, but alien to everything God has revealed about Himself.
I am not at home right now, so I am not prepared to address your post. However, for my information, what books are in your bible?
The Song of Songs
Ecclesiasticus / Sirach
New Testament »
Acts of Apostles
I see. So you accept the Apocrypha as inspired writing.
Nothing more for me to say. I disagree.
So have a great many theologians - long before Martin Luther, by the way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)