Canonization of Scriptures

[MrStain]

Can we just put Trento's post to a "Sticky" on this board. Would save a lot of bandwidth from the cutting and pasting of the same thing over and over again in LARGE and COLORFUL FONTS

LLOJ hopes his "bug-eyes" get back to normal soon

Hey, I like his stuff. Do you not like Protestant historians?

 

[Trento]

Can we just put Trento's post to a "Sticky" on this board. Would save a lot of bandwidth from the cutting and pasting of the same thing over and over again in LARGE and COLORFUL FONTS

LLOJ hopes his "bug-eyes" get back to normal soon

 

[calluna]

Do you not like Protestant historians?

History is the record written by the best bullies, and never by the best. Scripture repeatedly discounts history entirely, by warning about false teachers, who will have a great following. Jesus warned to judge people by their fruits, and that discounts a very great following. One can discover heresy in every author from 'Clement' to the Renaissance, so we might reasonably conclude that only heretics were tolerated after the canon was completed and established within the true church.

 

[MrStain]

History is the record written by the best bullies, and never by the best. Scripture repeatedly discounts history entirely, by warning about false teachers, who will have a great following. Jesus warned to judge people by their fruits, and that discounts a very great following. One can discover heresy in every author from 'Clement' to the Renaissance, so we might reasonably conclude that only heretics were tolerated after the canon was completed and established within the true church.

Are you proclaiming a historical fact with that statement?

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

History is the record written by the best bullies, and never by the best. Scripture repeatedly discounts history entirely, by warning about false teachers, who will have a great following. Jesus warned to judge people by their fruits, and that discounts a very great following. One can discover heresy in every author from 'Clement' to the Renaissance, so we might reasonably conclude that only heretics were tolerated after the canon was completed and established within the true church.

Since Clement was the Bishop of Rome prior to the scripture being canonized, does that mean the heresy started before or after the Bible canon was established?

Also, are you referring to the canon of scripture given to us by the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. or Luther's edited version sans 13 books? I just need to know the date of when heresy begins and ends.

I just want to get it straight and in accordance with your interpretation of history.

 

[calluna]

Since Clement was the Bishop of Rome prior to the scripture being canonized, does that mean the heresy started before or after the Bible canon was established?

How do we know that Clement was the bishop of Rome? How do we know that Clement was a bishop of Rome? How do we know that Clement was a member of the church? How do we know that Clement existed?

Also, are you referring to the canon of scripture given to us by the Council of Carthage

That canon is 'given' to those who think fit to accept it.

in 419 A.D. or Luther's edited version sans 13 books?

There is no dispute over the NT canon, so this issue is unimportant in this context.

I just need to know the date of when heresy begins and ends.

There is heresy reported in Israel in the OT, in the church in the NT, and heresy has existed ever since. (There is no rational alternative to sola Scriptura.)

 

[calluna]

Are you proclaiming a historical fact with that statement?

No. Many historians got there before I did.