[polemikos]

Where is your supporting material to PROVE that the document in question is authentic.

Ha ha! Now you're changing the subject, another form of straw man argument. Boy, you really like straw men!

You accuse me of “straw men”

Not at all, just pointing out the obvious ;-)

Clearly, the Church has rejected this letter (and most of the other ancient writings) as part of the Canon of scripture.

"Clearly" you like arguing against straw men.

No one has argued for "canonicity" so your many arguments against the position are moot (i.e., lack relevance or significance).

As yet another aside, you don't appear to understand the criteria the Church used for determining Scripture. Nor do you understand the meaning of "rejection" when applied to canonicity. As I indicated in an earlier post, there's more to canonicity than just "genuineness". (If you ever come across a post discussing canon criteria, please let me know. Development of the principles must have been very interesting.)

...like Augustine who accepted the authenticity of the scriptures based on the authority of the Catholic Church, so do I. Evidently, you don’t feel the same way.

Now you're just being plain silly. I'm responding, not because your point is off topic (which it is), nor because you've rebutted my argument (which you haven't), but because you're seriously misrepresenting what I said. If you want people to play with you, then you ought to play fair.

do you believe in the authenticity of all the apocryphal writings simply because they are anti Nicene?

First you'll have to define "apocryphal" because it has many meanings. And if your argument rests on the definition of apocrypha as "of dubious authenticity" then you're making more logical errors, this time combining a petitio principii error with a prejudicial language fallacy. Your loaded term is begging the question. (But on the plus side, your repertoire of logical fallacies is expanding! ;-)

However, you are the one who insists that this letter is authentic.

Fallacy Alert!!! Fallacy Alert!!!
Mischaracterization Sighted!!!

Actually, the burden of proof is on you.

And I've proven my assertion to the limit of the evidence available, without a single point being directly countered or refuted.

Bro. Anthony correctly inferred that the authenticity of this letter could not be proved.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of 'inference'. In the point at hand, Bro. Anthony simply made an unsubstantiated claim. No inference, correct or otherwise, was involved. (Now you on the other hand ... ;-)

I know for a fact that you have offered NO PROOF to support your belief.

All my proofs are directly from the web sites that either you or I referenced. Since the LSM and CSAP material is hosted by them, I have to assume it is true (for the sake of this argument). However, I am beginning to doubt that you can even identify my (repeatedly posted) assertion. If you can't, I'm spinning my wheels here.

So in summary,
- you've repeatedly misrepresented what I said
- you've repeatedly mischaracterized my arguments
- you've repeatedly raised off-topic arguments
- you've repeatedly made moot points
- you've repeatedly asserted logical fallacies as arguments

Thanks for playing! Better luck next time.

[Sock]

Now you're just being plain silly

I'm responding, not because your point is off topic (which it is), nor because you've rebutted my argument (which you haven't), but because you're seriously misrepresenting what I said.

If you want people to play with you, then you ought to play fair.

Fallacy Alert!!! Fallacy Alert!!!

Thanks for playing! Better luck next time.

I must admit, from your bio page, I expected more from you:

polemikos: from the Greek polemik(ós) meaning 'of or for war' or 'warlike'. Origin of 'polemic,' the art of disputation, an aggressive attack on the opinions of another.

Bwaaaahahahahaha!

You’re a prideful little child who has just been checkmated. Read the following material from the Catholic Encyclopedia and weep, Oh Great One!

I have no doubt that you will call into question the nefarious plot of the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding this subject or perhaps the author or even the evil Jesuit who transcribed this piece, but nevertheless, I’ve wasted too much time with you already. We are done.

"Also there are three letters extant only in Latin. Two of the three purport to be from Ignatius to St. John the Apostle, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply to the same. These are probably of Western origin, dating no further back than the twelfth century."

Click here, Little Man