The Muratorian Fragment

[GoldenArrow]

This is one of the COOLEST pieces of Apologetics material I’ve ever come across, particularly useful with protestants. It’s relatively unknown — at least to me.

Check out the Muratorian Fragment!

First, I didn’t find this document on a Catholic website.

Second, this document, dated 170AD mentions that there is ONE Church throughout the earth, and that it is “catholic.” The word “catholic” is used 3 times in the translation and twice as in the ORIGINAL Latin footnotes, #66 (catholicam eclesiam = “catholic church”) and #69 (catholica). It uses the word “bishop.” twice. It also refers to the Bishop of Rome as being “Pius” (Pope Pius I).

It gives the original Latin translation for certain words in the footnotes. Even more proof for our misinformed Protestants.

The document is basically a compilation of the 27 NT books that were generally accepted as canon, before the NT was officially canonized by the Catholic Church in approx. 400AD.

Show this document to Protestants who assert that the RCC is the “Roman Constantine Church.” It’ll blow them away. This PROVES them wrong. Again, this is NOT a Catholic website, so it’s not biased.

WAY COOL!

 

[Church_Militant]

WAY COOL!

I like it! I had never seen this before.

 

[Sabda]

I actually ran across that site before. However, I was looking at another sectin of it. The author of that sites states that he was born and raised Lutheran but joined the Baptist faith after he was grown. He now considers himself to be conservative reformed.

There is quite a bit of interesting stuff on his site. You should check out his list of tables he has for who disputed what in the Bible New Testament. Here’s the Old Testament list of disbuted books. It’s quite interesting like I said.

 

[Wisdom]

I actually ran across that site before. However, I was looking at another sectin of it. The author of that sites states that he was born and raised Lutheran but joined the Baptist faith after he was grown. He now considers himself to be conservative reformed.

There is quite a bit of interesting stuff on his site. You should check out his list of tables he has for who disputed what in the Bible New Testament. Here’s the Old Testament list of disbuted books. It’s quite interesting like I said.

Yeah pretty interesting and for the most part honest. The only thing in error that is obvious is the OT list of Origen as the Eusebius quote is Origen saying what is canonical for the Jews. In his other private works Origen clearly says the dueteros as scripture. But aside from that a lot of what he post in the disagreements are quite correct. Quite different than the Bible just fell out of the sky theory that circulate from Protestants the disagreement in the NT is what protestants don’t acknowledge but this list clearly points to. For instance Origen denies James John and Peter and Jude as canon but a protestant out of context says Origen denies the duteros as scripture - he does not as I explained but they won’t adress the fact his NT does not match there’s as well. Many protestants wil just focus on the OT canon debate but dismiss the same sort of debate was going on in the NT for a very long time.

 

[GoldenArrow]

Originally posted by Wisdom: Yeah pretty interesting and for the most part honest. The only thing in error that is obvious is the OT list of Origen as the Eusebius quote is Origen saying what is canonical for the Jews. In his other private works Origen clearly says the dueteros as scripture.

Brilliant comment, but WAY over Golden Arrow’s head. LOL! (Though, I *think *I can decipher it upon further examination).

Anyway, don’t you think this Muratorian Fragment is just super cool? It’s a FAB apologetics too. Plus, it’s short!

And yeah, the website appears to be a good, generalist, objective bible research website. I ran across this site by accident when I was doing research trying to find a source where I could read apocryphal texts – that is, online. I was actually looking for a link for my website to provide apologists with texts that are useful for a historical perspective of the early church.

Thanks, and God Bless!

 

[Wisdom]

Brilliant comment, but WAY over Golden Arrow’s head. LOL! (Though, I *think *I can decipher it upon further examination).

Anyway, don’t you think this Muratorian Fragment is just super cool? It’s a FAB apologetics too. Plus, it’s short!

And yeah, the website appears to be a good, generalist, objective bible research website. I ran across this site by accident when I was doing research trying to find a source where I could read apocryphal texts – that is, online. I was actually looking for a link for my website to provide apologists with texts that are useful for a historical perspective of the early church.

Thanks, and God Bless!

Yes it is cool along with the early finding of the Didache circa 60-100 AD with many thinking its closer to 60 a document that is quite catholic in places and problem for protestants and other cool writings are the early writings of the apostolic fathers like St Ignatius (disciple of John) and St Clement (early bishop of Rome who knew Peter and John circa 90 AD) and St PolyCarp (disciple of John) all really cool and really early catholic christians and or documents.