To: annalex; daniel1212; boatbums; Luircin; HarleyD; aMorePerfectUnion; imardmd1
daniel1212: this is contrary to the premise that the canon was settled in 5th c.
annalex: It is not contrary, since both canons essentially match.
**************************
Wait....moving those goalposts again. They either match or that don't.
To use your logic.....the "Protestant" bible and the Vulgate essentially match.
536 posted on
08/25/2018 7:02:18 AM PDT by
ealgeone
(SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CHANGE!)
To: ealgeone
Wait....moving those goalposts again. They either match or that don't. To use your logic.....the "Protestant" bible and the Vulgate essentially match. No, moving the goal posts would be expressing that the canon was settled in the 5th century and was binding on "the Church," and then after being shown that it was neither (thus making Luther out to be a maverick who rebelled against a indisputable canon) to make the argument that of being in conformity.
563 posted on
08/25/2018 4:30:23 PM PDT by
daniel1212
(Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: ealgeone; daniel1212; boatbums; Luircin; HarleyD; aMorePerfectUnion; imardmd1
the "Protestant" bible and the Vulgate essentially match No, because of the Deuterocanonicals. 7 books.
613 posted on
08/27/2018 5:44:35 AM PDT by
annalex
(fear them not)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson