Then why did it take the Church 300 years to come up with a statement of what is believed?
God decided to wait for 300 years before pulling together the convenience of one "official" canon. The elect were still being taught the correct things before that happened, though. It wasn't like the collection and selection of the canon exposed the elect to correct teaching for the first time.
The agreement [on the canon] is remarkably superficial. Scratch the surface, as I mentioned earlier, and you will find that, while Christians use the same words, they mean different things to different communities.
The last part is certainly true, but in debate we are far better off with being able to start with the same words, at least, and in many cases similar worldviews. There's only so far an atheist and a believer can get with debating scripture since there is no common starting ground.
FK: I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).
The Torah was assembled for Christians? The Gentiles are included only insofar as the Seven Noachide Laws are concerned. The Gentiles have no other role in In God's plan. The Torah is about the Jews and for the Jews, and Christians are not Jews.
As you know the Torah [5 books part if there is other] is part of the Bible, but they are different assemblies. As far as who is a Jew and who is a Gentile is concerned, the NT makes it clear that a true Jew and a true Christian are both true believers in the One true God.
The author argues that Matthew misquotes and/or distorts Jewish prophets, contradicts other Gospels, and makes up stories by providing bible verses and references.
But the author claims as fact that both the Christian and Jewish Holy books are fictitious (note at bottom of link). The Bible tells us plainly that to such as these the word of God will be utter nonsense. I can't take him seriously when the book I consider authoritative says not to.
How can you say that? Have you ever read any of the early Christian apologetics, such as Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus...? Have you ever considered their own canons?
The last part is certainly true, but in debate we are far better off with being able to start with the same words, at least, and in many cases similar worldviews
yeah, like Trinity and the existence therefor...
There's only so far an atheist and a believer can get with debating scripture since there is no common starting ground
I understand that, but I am talking Christains of different persuasions.
As you know the Torah [5 books part if there is other] is part of the Bible, but they are different assemblies. As far as who is a Jew and who is a Gentile is concerned, the NT makes it clear that a true Jew and a true Christian are both true believers in the One true God
You are subjecting the OT to the New Testament while claiming they are all equal. They don't teach the same thing. On what authority does the NT supersede the Torah when the Torah is said to have been dictated by God word for word to Moses and was written by God before the foundation of the world? How can the Torah be "fulfilled" when it says in the Torah itself that the Torah can be fulfilled.
But the author claims as fact that both the Christian and Jewish Holy books are fictitious (note at bottom of link). The Bible tells us plainly that to such as these the word of God will be utter nonsense
The author himself is not a believer, but he is only the messenger. The arguments he presents are the arguments made by Jewish theologians that can be found elsewhere. He just summarizes them in an easy to follow manner.