Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8936 total)
367 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 364 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,937 Year: 16,973/19,786 Month: 1,098/2,598 Week: 21/323 Day: 21/51 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
Posts: 17301
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5

Message 226 of 226 (707263)
09-25-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Dawn Bertot
09-24-2013 5:03 PM

Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:

Specifically they were not included because the people that had access to the actual detailed facts, IOWs they were actually there.

That isn't specific. Name the people. Show that they had access to "the" detailed facts. Show what those detailed facts were. Show that they were there.

But that isn't even what I asked you. I asked you to demonstrate that the non-canonical books - and the documents that have been discovered after the canons were set in stone - do not meet the same standards.

Dawn Bertot writes:

History and time support my position, not wiki. I simply quoted those books to see if you could find them in any known Canon

I guess you cant

That's the point. Why are some books in some canons and not in others?

I guess you don't know.

Because all you're saying is that the compilers of your prefered canaon musta known what was accurate and what wasn't. Yet you can't seem to supply any specifics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-24-2013 5:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019