To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery.
7,314 posted on
03/08/2011 5:15:24 PM PST by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery. OK, I understand your willingness to quote from a work of fiction such as the Apostolic Constitutions to justify a very imaginative definition of a Church Canon.
7,315 posted on
03/09/2011 9:35:54 AM PST by
OLD REGGIE
(I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery. And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.
Do you still wish to defend the following?
The (Pseudo-fictional-fake-phony) Apostolic Constitutions
7,316 posted on
03/09/2011 10:04:20 AM PST by
OLD REGGIE
(I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery. And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.
Do you still wish to defend the following?
The (Pseudo-fictional-fake-phony) Apostolic Constitutions
7,317 posted on
03/09/2011 10:04:20 AM PST by
OLD REGGIE
(I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson