Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: aMorePerfectUnion
"This isn’t in Scripture, nor is there evidence it was taught by any Apostle, nor believed by any Christian before 100 ad. "

I reckon you're just trying to be brief here, but you haven't even considered evidence. You can't say there "isn't evidence" simply because you're unaware of it or fail to deal with it.

The same generations of Christians (AD 100 - 300) who believed in the ever-virginity of Mary are the ones who preserved, canonized and handed on the Scriptures you and I hold to be sacred. There's nothing in the Bible about which books are supposed to be Scripture; there's no Table of Contents; there's no signatures on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: so as far as the text goes, they're anonymous. (How do you know who wrote them?) Nor is there evidence that the whole 27 books of the NT were "taught by any Apostle, nor believed by any Christian before 100 AD."

Except... EXCEPT that we know this from the history of the Church: it was the Fathers, the Synods, the Councils, the --- yes --- extra-Biblical writings and the Church authorities which "canonized" our sacred canon of Scripture.

You can't reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It's really as simple as that.

401 posted on 05/19/2017 6:02:33 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If he refuses to listen even to the Church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

(On iPhone-pardon brevity)

Word games. There is ZERO evidence that directly ties this belief to any Apostle and ZERO evidence in Scripture.

Zero + Zero = Zero

“You can’t reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It’s really as simple as that.”

It’s really as “red herring” as that. The canon was examined and recognized later, after removing erroneous books.

Mary’s ongoing virginity has no Apostolic root, or you would have posted SCRIPTURE or other actual evidence from 100 ad, instead of reverting to belief in later generations.


403 posted on 05/19/2017 6:10:20 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Except... EXCEPT that we know this from the history of the Church: it was the Fathers, the Synods, the Councils, the --- yes --- extra-Biblical writings and the Church authorities which "canonized" our sacred canon of Scripture.

More false teachings on your part. .

By 170 AD the 27 books of the NT were accepted by the ekklesia.

Rome only recognized its canon at Trent around 1546 AD....some 1376 years after the ekklesia had already done so. Roman Catholics were a bit late to the party.

You can't reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It's really as simple as that.

Yes you can.

410 posted on 05/19/2017 7:16:24 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The same generations of Christians (AD 100 - 300) who believed in the ever-virginity of Mary are the ones who preserved, canonized and handed on the Scriptures you and I hold to be sacred.

The same folks who were linked to the seven CATHOLIC churches in Asia that yet another angel told john to write to?

414 posted on 05/19/2017 7:24:58 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o
... the Scriptures you and I hold to be sacred.

Ha ha HA!!

Call no man father!

415 posted on 05/19/2017 7:25:33 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson