Posted on 01/21/2014 8:16:31 PM PST by ebb tide
The easy but short sighted view goes like this: Two thousand years ago = nothing can be known about that time.
But the more you think, the more you move the ball from left to right.
Within the time frame of the first century, there was no question which books were the right ones. It was common knowledge. In the same way, frauds were also obvious.
For example, in our time to separate standard medical journals from naturopathic ones is something even a layperson could do based on common knowledge. Hypothetically, people from a culture two thousand years from now would not have that common knowledge and naysayers would see it as an opportunity to question the distinction.
A more formal standard used was proximity to original Church leaders (apostles).
Pure, unadulterated gibberish that has been refuted by all the pre-eminent theologians of our day ranging from Augustine-Aquinas-Newman-Benedict (the theological Einstein of our times) - and even the leading and foremost Lutheran Scholar in American, the late Richard Neuhaus who converted to Catholicism. What you write is the errant nonsense peddled by scriptural amateurs.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cr 2:14)
Peace be with you my "fellow freeper".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.