[Blogger]

10741 was my answer to you jo kus. I will not repeat myself, nor will I bother trying to deal with your deliberate mischaracterization of what I explicitly handled in another post. The fact that Jesus speaks of things as "Scripture" means that there are books that were settled as part of the canon of Scripture at his time. The rest, you'll have to deal with. I have answered you in a lengthy post. I can't help if you don't wish to read it.

[jo kus]

I will not repeat myself, nor will I bother trying to deal with your deliberate mischaracterization of what I explicitly handled in another post. The fact that Jesus speaks of things as "Scripture" means that there are books that were settled as part of the canon of Scripture at his time.

Unfortunately for you, it is not the same "Canon" that you consider the Old Testament to be... Just because Jesus mentions "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings" doesn't mean there was an established canon.

According to you, Jesus denies the historical books of the Old Testament as being Scripture.

As I said before, you stretch the meaning of the passage in question...

Regards