You raise a good question, but I know you don't want to know the answer. Obviously, Little Birdy, your intent is to cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible. The assumption that lies below the surface of your question, like a shark ready to devour, is the idea that men decided which writings should be in our Bibles and which should be left out. If your beliefs were based on arguments, especially arguments you researched for yourself, you might argue that the traditions of men should be trusted because it was the traditions of men that decided which books to keep and which books to discard.
Ergo, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based on the apriori decision to trust in the traditions of men. But even if this were so, which I don't believe, the salient question becomes, "whom do you trust?" From your perspective, given your position, it would be unwise for you to accept the traditions of those men whom you didn't know personally or to accept the word of men who were of ill repute. Before you believed the Catholic dogma, did you research the lives of the men who first articulated your beliefs?
By contrast, consider my position. The locus of my believes is centered on the Holy Bible I have in my possession, and the character of the men who wrote it is exemplary. As Peter said, by the time he wrote his second letter, we have all that we need to live a godly life and partake in the divine nature. In other words, the man whom you claim to be the first pope is the one who said that we need nothing else from him, let alone from pretenders who come thousands of years later.
You are wasting time. It's getting late.
the Bible only s only the Bible cos the church says so
the Bible is reliable but all of it not you’re 66 books with missing chapters
not the tradition of men or mere human tradition but the tradition or teaching of the apostles united to and exorcising the authority of Christ with the power of the HS Matt 16:18 Matt 28:19 Jn 10:16 and 16:13 and 8:32