sotto voce

Isn't it odd how atheism knows who is holy.

Duvduv

Yes, you are correct.
Now notice the way the letter of Athanasius describes the emergence of the "canon." He does not indicate how it happened, when it happened or who the canonizers actually were. Nor does he explain how and why Christian texts (which were simply called "memoirs") became divinely inspired holy writ equivalent to the Tanakh.

Nor does he explain what sources of these texts are those showing that a new covenant with gentiles has replaced the old covenant with the Jews. The assorted testimonies for holy writ of this new covenant are in the 4th century and a few in the 5th and 6th. Why this needs to be repeated so many times is strange if they were handed down and the texts had been known for the alleged three or more centuries.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

Toto

He would have had to go back in time to do that. Christians did not do that level of miracle.

Duvduv

Indeed, this is true for the other descriptions from other Christian writers in those days. No explanation of where the NT texts came from, how they changed from memoirs and letters to divinely inspired holy writ in the 4th and 5th centuries, or who the authority was that these and no other texts. Or when exactly these "divinely inspired texts" became classified as "new" and superceding the earlier revealed texts of the Old Testament.
Especially since these texts were all official allegedly since the days of "Irenaeus" in the second century.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

sotto voce

Ah. An expert speaks.

Sheshbazzar

Who said I was an atheist? My profile certainly makes no such declaration.
I simply don't buy the 'Jewish', 'Christian', or 'Muslim' crocks of horse crap.

As for the appellation 'Saint' and 'Martyr' being applied to the Christian writer known as 'Justin' that is Christianities doing. Atheists had nothing to do with it.
And all known forms of Christianity have long accepted 'Saint Justin's' writings as being a valid early Christian source.

Would you care to identify your strange and unknown Christian sect that rejects Saint Justin the Martyr and his writings???


.

Duvduv

http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html
At the Council of Laodicea the origin of the canon is not explained at all:
59. Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

And it was it known as the Third Council of Carthage we find that the source of the canon is still unknown:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures." (determined by whom??!!)

Toto

Duvduv - I guess you had to have been there.

sotto voce

Nobody. But atheists seem to be the only ones who know anything for certain about Christianity. So where is the authority for calling Justin a saint, if not atheism?

Nonsense. Mind-boggling nonsense. Get out more!

People who call Justin a saint have criminal records. So go carefully.

Protestantism rejects as authoritative everything outside 66 books. Any Protestant with a modicum of maturity can prove all those works by men known as 'early fathers' to be heretical. So if atheism etc. is so doggedly determined to acknowledge fervent belief in justification by faith, it can carry on describing the rubbish of Justin as Christian.

Toto

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

:hysterical:

:hysterical: