To: OLD REGGIE; Cronos; RnMomof7; Dr. Eckleburg; metmom; Quix; caww; 1000 silverlings
Given the history of forged Letters used justify RCC practices it is difficult, if not impossible, to acept the truthfullness of any of the "early" letters Excellent! You are on the right path. Now just apply this talent to biblical manuscripts for another bubble to burst.
11,454 posted on
10/14/2010 4:02:17 PM PDT by
kosta50
(God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
To: kosta50; OLD REGGIE; Cronos; RnMomof7; Dr. Eckleburg; metmom; Quix; caww; 1000 silverlings
Given the history of forged Letters used justify RCC practices it is difficult, if not impossible, to acept the truthfullness of any of the "early" letters
Excellent! You are on the right path. Now just apply this talent to biblical manuscripts for another bubble to burst. Though our oldest manuscripts are >300 years old there is considerable consistency to accept them as "sufficiently" authentic.
As to who wrote the Gospels?????????? I am after all a Unitarian. :-)
I do believe the selection of the "sacred" books to be accepted as Scripture was an arbitrary procedure and a choice made by men, not the Holy Spirit. That said, I believe the Scripture we have today is "sufficient" and worthwhile.
11,657 posted on
10/15/2010 10:58:02 AM PDT by
OLD REGGIE
(I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson