nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: + + + +
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 14:48, April 7, 2008
, 14:48, April 7, 2008Only one valid reason.
:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: "The adultress story is plainly not authentic...": No, this is not plain at all. In fact, it sounds very much like you are saying that it doesn't ''appear'' to be authentic, rather than having actual reasons. If so, this is you making yourself the judge of what's canonical and what's not. However, perhaps you meant that ''the evidence'' is plainly on the side of it being not authentic. Some do agree with you that the evidence is sufficient, but others don't agree, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is ''plainly'' not authentic.
::::: "''...it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda.''": So is Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Does that mean that Matthew 7:1 doesn't belong either? No, this is not a valid reason.
::::: The ''only'' valid reason is convincing evidence that it was added later. All other reasons are invalid, meaningless, or heretical.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
== What Constitutes Gospel? ==
== What Constitutes Gospel? ==