Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[Augustin56]

Respectfully Disagree, Because God's Preserved Word Is Very Clear:

1)

Psa 138:2 “I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name for​

Thy Lovingkindness and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast MAGNIFIED Thy​

Word Above All THY NAME.”​

2)

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to​

myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us​

​

not to think above That Which Is Written,​

​

that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."​

(1 Corinthians 4:6 KJV)​

​

Thus, 'oral tradition' is disobedience to this Plain Statement, and, FurtherMoreOver, how
can it ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ be equal to, and Be "Higher Than All Of God's Holy Name"?

Did not Satan declare that very thing orally (Isaiah 14:14), and then what happened to him?

Hadn't we better "take heed" according to this example, From God's Preserved Word?:

1Co_10:12 "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."​

(cp Pro_11:2, 13:10)​

Amen.

Grace, simple question. IF God's Word (I'm assuming you mean the Bible) were so clear, then explain why there are literally tens of thousands of different-believing, man-made denominations, all reading the same Bible and coming up with contradictory doctrines? That doesn't support clarity at all.

 

[Athanasius377]

But what did this mean for the common person in that time frame?
No way to really judge whether something is biblical when you don't have a Bible, and couldn't read it anyway.

The early christians most certainly had a bible, for the common person it was the LXX and the oral teaching of the Apostles, which as later written down. That is what the earliest christians refer to as the "Rule of Faith". Did every christian own a text of scripture? No. Yet they would have been taught at a local church where the reading of scripture was done. Reading in the ancient world is not where one sits down with a codex (book) and reads silently to himself. Rather, there would have been a reader who was charged with reading aloud the text in a place where other could hear. So the ability to read the text for oneself would not have mattered so las much as you are trying to portray. Similar to what the Jews were doing in the synagogue. How do we know they did such things? Justin Martyr (ca 100AD to 165 AD), tells us:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Justin Martyr. (1885). The First Apology of Justin. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 186). Christian Literature Company.

Strange enough these early christians seems to know already what is scripture. Perhaps because Jesus said they would:


My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (Jn 10:27 ESV)

 

[St. SteVen]

Strange enough these early christians seems to know already what is scripture. Perhaps because Jesus said they would:


My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (Jn 10:27 ESV)

Hey, hang on. I liked your post, but now you are claiming the written word is HEARING Jesus voice. ???
This is going too far. IMHO

Do Jesus sheep not hear his voice today except by the scriptures?
Has God, or Jesus, NEVER spoken to you? (tragic if true)

Matthew 7:23 NIV
Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

 

[GRACE ambassador]

The early christians most certainly had a bible, for the common person it was the LXX and the oral teaching of the Apostles, which as later written down.

Amen! And, Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome to the Board.

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged, Enlightened, Exhorted, And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided! (+ I and II!) * ← PG rated "Approved" *

Grace, Peace, And JOY!…

* PG = Perfect God / Parental Guidance:

 

[Athanasius377]

Begs the questions:
- Should we even have a Bible?
- How should it be used?

If salvation is in the Church (capital "C"), of what use is a Bible to the common person? (laity)
The Church decides what it means and what to do with it.

Most of those with Bibles to read today love them.
Some to the point of idolizing them.

The Lord certainly thought so. He entrusted the the OT to the Jews:

To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. (Rom 3:2 ESV)

And how it should be used:


But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14–17 ESV)

If salvation is in the Church (capital "C"), of what use is a Bible to the common person? (laity)
The Church decides what it means and what to do with it.

Salvation is certainly found in the church:


I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. (1 Tim 3:14–15 ESV)

You will notice the context of 1 Tim that Paul is speaking of the local assembly of believers. While an institution in its own right, it is not referring to a centralized authoritarian body that the modern Roman church is today.

As to the charge that the the Church (capital C) "decides what scripture means and what yo do with it" as you put it. Where can I find where this Church gave it's interpretation of Scripture?

 

[Athanasius377]

Hey, hang on. I liked your post, but now you are claiming the written word is HEARING Jesus voice. ???
This is going too far. IMHO

Do Jesus sheep not hear his voice today except by the scriptures?
Has God, or Jesus, NEVER spoken to you? (tragic if true)

Yes. Every time I open my Bible and read a passage of scripture aloud. All Scripture is God-Breathed as 2 Tim 3:16 says. The word used is θεόπνευστος or theopneustos. Put your hand in front of your face and exhale. That gives you an idea of what Paul is talking about. Scripture is the primary way one hears Jesus's voice today. Not the only way, but the primary way.

 

[St. SteVen]

Not the only way, but the primary way.

Okay, I agree with that.
I thought you were limiting what God might do. Thanks.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Grace, simple question. IF God's Word (I'm assuming you mean the Bible) were so clear, then explain why there are literally tens of thousands of different-believing, man-made denominations, all reading the same Bible and coming up with contradictory doctrines? That doesn't support clarity at all.

I thought there were Over 100 new, modern translations, with multitudes of changes, and
omissions. How is that "all reading the same Bible"?

Now, for those who are reading the same Bible (KJV), then that would be a Different story:

1) they are not saved (but think they are), and have not The Blessed Holy Spirit, or:

2) IF they are, then do they follow The Blessed Teacher, The Holy Spirit, and abide by all

These Bible study Rules?

These should provide 'clarity' it would seem to me...

Amen.

 

[St. SteVen]

Now, for those who are reading the same Bible (KJV), then that would be a Different story:

1) they are not saved (but think they are), and have not The Blessed Holy Spirit, or:

2) IF they are, then do they follow The Blessed Teacher, The Holy Spirit, and abide by all

Not saved, but think they are?
In that case, how can anyone know?
Do you think you are saved? (maybe you aren't then) Yikes!

Abide by all? That's a tall order. Are any of us capable of that?
I think that's the point. God HAS to save us because we CAN'T save ourselves.

 

[Grailhunter]

Translations are not infallible, and most translations have errors, due to complexity of languages and how they are used in a particular culture at the time

That was a mouthful….and I agree.
And how many different types of errors….Some of them are to cover for false doctrines....look into the Comma Johanneum Addition.

Some are written to make the reader feel familiar. Christians expect Christian Churches ….they expect to see it in the Bible. The Pagans and Jews worshipped in temples where as Christians eventually worshiped in Churches so this was a distinction between them. There is no reason to do a translation that no one is going to buy or read, so they catered to the level of understanding of the average reader. So Christian congregations and "The Way" was refered to as a church(es) Giving Christians that warm fuzzy.

The same is true of weddings in the Bible….the word wedding does not occur in the Old or New Testament….Gotcha! The wedding in Cana is not called a wedding in the scriptures…..it is called the marriage in Cana. And here is where it gets confusing…..

Most every source is going to say that the word wedding is in the Bible… translations of the Bible, source material, books, and media…web. This is false….The Hebrew language did not have a word for wedding and the New Testament uses the Greek word for marriage…gamos.

Between the reality of church buildings and marriage ceremonies nearly all sources lead your average Christian down the garden path of misconceptions.

My ministry….the Johnny Appleseed of Truth…is to unravel the false beliefs with truth. Church buildings did not exist until the 4th century when Christianity merged with the Roman Empire. If there were church buildings the Romans would have went down to the church on Sundays and round all the Christians up and feed them to the lions. Until the 4th century Christianity was an outlawed religion in hiding. After the merge, Emperor Constantine and subsequent Emperors built most of the old well known Churches/Cathedrals for Christians. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Nativity, the Church of Saint Peter, the Hagia Sophia etc....

Wedding ceremonies and elaborate receptions came from Pagan societies and customs….to understand what was going on you have to understand that. Wedding are occurring in the Bible, they are just not called weddings and they are voluntary. The marriage at Cana is a mystery….The Bible does not tell us who was getting married, if the marriage was Christian, Jewish, or Pagan and why it was important to Christ’s mother.

Either way the word used for wedding is a Greek word that means marriage….source material will tell you it means wedding….Most everything will tell you it means wedding.

Actually the Greeks have a word for wedding (γαμήλια gamília) and it is an interesting word and has meanings….marriage ceremony….a special ring that vows are said over….but it is not in the scriptures.

From what is described in the scriptures the marriage at Cana was truly a wedding as we understand it…it just was not called a wedding, but translators and source material did and do.

The history of the Jewish wedding ceremony….scholarly speculation here….? When the Jews were under the friendly rule of the Persians they came to admire Persian weddings and celebrations that could go on for days. Beautiful and elaborate weddings that the Jews were invited to.

So the Jews came up with their own wedding ceremonies based on Old Testament events and characters. But then Alexander the Great conquered Persia and the Jews were slaughtered for centuries. So then the Jews came to hate anything Pagan and the Jewish Wedding fell out favor because it was inspired by a Pagan culture.

Now look in Matthew chapter 25…Christ is talking about bridesmaids and bridegroom and lamps etc….You will not find this ceremony anywhere else in the Bible because He is talking about the Jewish wedding ceremony that was developed between the Testaments in Persia.

As centuries passed the Jewish wedding became popular again and today you can look into the Jewish wedding process and see aspects of that old Jewish wedding ceremony.

But your “average Christian” is not going to get any of this….because of the biblical translations and source material…most are going to believe that there were church buildings in early Christianity and that people were forming marriages by weddings ceremonies and that weddings were required in the New Testament. Which is all false.

On the other hand, although the first documented Christian wedding occurred in the 9th century, when Paul started converting Pagans to Christianity the Pagans converted their religion but brought in their culture, their customs, and some of their seasonal holidays….wedding ceremonies was one of the customs that the Gentile Christians introduced to Christianity. And no doubt that Gentile wedding ceremonies were occurring from the biblical period and on….but they were voluntary and it was understood that the marriage was consummated by the couple’s union.

Then the Protestants made wedding ceremonies a requirement to be married in the mid 1500’s and the Catholic Church followed their example. Most of this information is lost to your average Christian….And it skews the persceptions of what was actually going on in early Christianity.

Of course the other implication and ramifications are the other false theological words and phrases that have been introduced into Christianity. At this point the word fornication is well known but it is another word that does not appear in the scriptures and its meaning is not scriptural and skews the meaning of scriptures that are in the Bible.

Fornication can mean a few things and in some translations immoral sexual activities are all lumped into the word fornication that does not belong there. Fornicatian can mean that two unmarried people having sex is a sin….when for most of history that was the way marriages were formed…no sin.

Then you have all the other false theological words and phrases….Trinity, Original Sin, Virgin Mary, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual virginity, etc.

 

[Athanasius377]

Grace, simple question. IF God's Word (I'm assuming you mean the Bible) were so clear, then explain why there are literally tens of thousands of different-believing, man-made denominations, all reading the same Bible and coming up with contradictory doctrines? That doesn't support clarity at all.

We should probably permanently retire that charge as it simply isn't true. A good refutation of said charge by a RC author can be found here and its pretty convincing.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

Recently someone sent me a link with the note, “Here’s something for you to refute.” Somehow along the way I have become Mr. Refutation. I can’t say how t...

www.ncregister.com

I would charge that as an LCMS Lutheran there is far more common between me and a fellow magisterial protestant that say a liberal catholic has with a traditionlist catholic.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

@St. SteVen "- Should we even have A Bible?"

The Lord certainly thought so. He entrusted the the OT to the Jews:

To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. (Rom 3:2 ESV)

And how it should be used:

Amen!

"All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration of God, and Is Profitable for doctrine, for​

reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God​

may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)​

​

And So Much More:

Handling The Word Of Life

Amen.

 

[Augustin56]

We should probably permanently retire that charge as it simply isn't true. A good refutation of said charge by a RC author can be found here and its pretty convincing.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

Recently someone sent me a link with the note, “Here’s something for you to refute.” Somehow along the way I have become Mr. Refutation. I can’t say how t...

www.ncregister.com

I would charge that as an LCMS Lutheran there is far more common between me and a fellow magisterial protestant that say a liberal catholic has with a traditionlist catholic.

What number would you give it, then? Certainly in the thousands. We're not just talking major denominations. We're talking small Mom-n-Pop denominations. There are many near where I live. We have many in our area like "Double Portion Church" and "Soma Church" and "New Greater Hope Church." And it goes on and on. I would say more than one is too many. Christ only founded one Church and gave one set of beliefs. And He didn't leave it for everyone to have to reinvent the theological wheel by themselves through a translation of a book. St. Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth." He doesn't call the individual personally interpreting his or her Bible anything of the sort.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

He doesn't call the individual personally interpreting his or her Bible anything of the sort.

So, the simple question here is:

I am not going to give an account, At Judgement, for my personal study Of His Word, but
I am going to give an account for not "heeding what 'the church'" told me?

 

[Athanasius377]

What number would you give it, then? Certainly in the thousands. We're not just talking major denominations. We're talking small Mom-n-Pop denominations. There are many near where I live. We have many in our area like "Double Portion Church" and "Soma Church" and "New Greater Hope Church." And it goes on and on. I would say more than one is too many. Christ only founded one Church and gave one set of beliefs. And He didn't leave it for everyone to have to reinvent the theological wheel by themselves through a translation of a book. St. Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth." He doesn't call the individual personally interpreting his or her Bible anything of the sort.

So by using the same methodology as the author that claims there are 33k denominations would you then agree there are 242 Roman Catholic Denominations? And if so, then which is the real one that exercises the power of the keys? Are there too many fractures in the church? Absolutely. Yet, I suppose it is better to knowledge the fact that we are not in communion with others than to simply say we are. Such is the case with the Roman church. There are entire regions of the Roman church that are in open rebellion against that church's teaching on marriage for example. Has there been an discipline or rebuke from Pope Francis? Not a peep. What about RC politicians that openly defy the Roman church's teaching on abortion, artificial contraception and the (new) teaching on capital punishment? And yet the mom and pop churches you speak of are probably far closer in their doctrine than entire regions within the Roman church.

As to what Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3:15 is referring to the local body of believers not a centralized authoritarian church that won't exist for another 700+ years.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You just deny all of history so it is a waste of time.
So your home work is to find all the people that the Catholic Church excommunicated and why and what happened to them.

You can reject God and His sacred Word all you want – and you’ll ALWAYS be wrong.

You’re fight’s NOT with me – it’s with HIM.
Good luck with that . . .

True statements but none of this has to do with the non biblical concept of Original Sin....and the plan of God.

You completely missed the point.
I debunked your idiotic contention that if something isn't explicitly stated in Scripture - it's "error".

Be fruitful and multiple so sin will fill the world!…and babies will go to Hell! So saith the Lord….LOL…I don’t think so!

Either you’re a malicious liar – or you really are that stupid.

The Church never taught that unbaptized babies go to Hell. This was the entire reason for the hypothesis of “Limbo”. It was a way of reasoning what happened to them because Scripture and Tradition were silent on the matter.

The Church leaves the fate of the souls of unbaptized babies to the mercy of God.
So, go and vomit your lies somewhere else . . .

Humans are not gods.....so ya they will make mistakes.

And a relationship with God does not mean you are damned from birth. LOL That would be one heck of a plan....consistent from the mind of a madman.

If you KNEW your Bible - which you obviously DON'T - you would know that it wasn’t supposed to be like this.
Man FELL and sin entered the world.

Rom. 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Yes that is what I said.....notice the plural....
And I was still talking about the Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century because the Catholic Church did not exist before them.

The Catholic Church did NOT exist before the 4th century??
Gee – NONE of these guys got the memo . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 150]).

Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

Cyprian
? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).

 

[Titus]

As it is written, There is none righteous no, not one. "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Paul's audience here is the Jews. He says this of them not a general statement otherwise the Bible contradicts itself.
Cornelius BEFORE he was born again seeked after God,
Acts 10:1-
- There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian regiment.
- a  devout man and one who  feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people and prayed to God always

 

[Titus]

The Catholic Church did NOT exist before the 4th century??
Gee – NONE of these guys got the memo . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 150]).

Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

Cyprian
? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).

None of these men are Inspired.
None of these men are in the Bible.
None of these men speak for the Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is a common. Roman polemic against scripture that has been used time and again even though it is factually false. First, there was not a large gap between the events of the NT and the writing of the contents there of. The first christians were Jews who used the Hebrew Old Testament as scripture. The first christians outside of Judea would have used the Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint, or the LXX since this was the common language of the eastern Roman Empire. The LXX and the Apostle's preaching and teaching would have made up the Rule of Faith. This teaching was handed down (παράδοσις) to the various churches that the apostles founded. These teachings were later written down in the middle of the first century.
The first book of the New Testament was probably Galatians in the 40's AD. We know that Paul's letters were circulated among the various churches from Col 4. The synoptic Gospels were likely written in the 50's ad, with John being later in the early 60's AD. The last book to be written was probably Revelation prior to 70 AD. That means if Christ ascended into heaven in 33AD then the first writings may have been as little as 7 years later. If the findings in Qumran are valid, the fragments of Mark, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter and James were found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These date between 50-80AD which is extremely early. That means that these documents were already circulating before the close of the first century and probably during the middle part too. Add to that the finding of early papyri such as p52 which dates from the early 2nd century. Oddly enough p52 is from a codex meaning someone bound this in book form with other writings (presumably other books of scripture).

Then you have citations of the NT from the early church fathers such as Clement of Rome in the late first century, Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century. By the mid to late second century you have Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and so forth.

So to the charge there was no bible as we know it until a much later date. Yes, but to say that is misleading. The fact is there were collections of NT scriptures in the possession of people very early on and they were treated as authoritative.

As to the contents of the New Testament there was a pretty clear consensus right away with the majority of 27 books we now recognize as canonical. The gnostic texts were never really considered as they were clearly a different character and frankly of a different religion. The disputes that regarding the canon were really around a few books, such as 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Other texts that were considered by some as canonical were the Apocalypse of Peter, Shepard of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache.

Eusebius, the ancient church historian observes regarding the rejected texts:


And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.


Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 157). Christian Literature Company.

The reality was the NT canon was largely decided by the mid to late second century. Athanasius the Great gives us his list of the NT books we have today in 367 AD. How did he come up with this list? Thankfully for us he told us in the text of his letter:


In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,* to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it hath seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by the brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to bring before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may correct those who have led him astray; and that he who continues stedfast in purity, may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.


Athanasius of Alexandria. (1854). The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius (H. Burgess, Trans.; pp. 137–138). John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington.

Athanasius is pointing to the fact that the canon was already clearly delineated from false writings that is plain to him. Meaning he didn't make up the canonical list he is rather reproducing it.

So when did Rome officially declare what the canon was? April of 1546 at a session of the Council of Trent. I am not suggesting that Rome didn't know what the canon was until the sixteenth century but I am pointing it out to illustrate the absurdity of this "Table of Contents" argument.

That’s NOT accurate.

The Catholic Church officially declared the Canon of Scripture (Table of contests, as it were) in 383 at the Synod of Rome. In the years that followed – it was reiterated several times.

- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).

- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.

- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.

- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

 

[BreadOfLife]

None of these men are Inspired.
None of these men are in the Bible.
None of these men speak for the Bible.

If it wasn't for these men - YOU would NOT even know who Jesus is.

It was these men who faithfully suffered and were butchered for the Gospel soo that YOU could have a Church and a Bible some 2000 years later.

And these men were CATHOLIC.