Bible

[Katholikos]

Part 2

Michael wrote:

The two copies of the LXX that we have date to about 350 and do not even contain the exact canon of the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church has (to say nothing of the Greek Church). Therefore, even if it did represent the LXX 500 years later (which is a large leap of faith for the reason #1] presented above), they don’t even have the same Deuterocanonical books.

To reiterate, the Catholic Church canonized the 46 Greek writings that she inherited from the Apostles. No more, no less. The list is contained in the decree from the Council of Rome, which I can post if you wish, though I think someone posted it previously. I’m aware that there is variation in some manuscripts of the LXX. But the Church canonized what she received from the Apostles – period.

There is variation in some NT manuscripts as well. Codex Sinaiticus – one of our most important manuscripts dating from the mid-fourth century – contains the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas. This proves nothing except that the canon had not been settled at the time it was produced, and that different communities had different favored texts. But what counts is what was canonized.

These are the problems that I have. Mainly that it does not seem like Jesus believed it to be inspired, and the LXX argument is weak. What am I missing? I am truly trying to be faithful to our Lord.

If you will not accept the Encyclopedia of Early Christianty as a reliable source of information; if it is not enough for you to know that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint containing the so-called “Apocrypha,” and that Jesus quoted the LXX; and that the LXX was quoted consistently by the NT writers; and that the Apostles used the LXX to evangelize the entire then-known world; and that the LXX was the Bible of the first Christians, I say that you are like the Jews of whom St. Luke wrote, quoting Father Abraham (paraphrased): “. . . you will not be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

From Understanding the New Testament by Howard Clark Kee, Fourth Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1983, p. 374: “We have already seen that the Scripture of the Christian community from the outset was the Old Testament, in most cases in its Greek translation (the Septuagint). Paul quotes from many of its books in his letters; Jesus is remembered to have used it as authoritative. And the Gospel writers also made use of it in their interpretations of Jesus’s mission, understanding Him to have fulfilled the promises about the Messiah contained in the Jewish scriptures.” This was my textbook from Arizona State University when I studied OT and NT history.

(emphasis added)

JMJ Jay

 

[Luke1_48]

This thread is too funny now, lol! I can’t make sense out of anything. At least I know about the septugint now.

 

[michaelp]

Here is the key assumption that you are making that is probebly not true: The LXX in the time of Christ contained the Apocrypha as part of its canon.

Here is why I am not persuaded of this assumption.

1. First, the earliest fragments of the LXX do not contain any book of the Apocrypha The most important of these are the Chester Beatty papyri IV and V (Rahlfs 961 and 962) containing with lacunae substantial portions of Genesis 8–46 and dating from the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C… Chester Beatty VI contains Numbers and Deuteronomy and dates from the 2nd or early 3rd century B.C.
2. The earliest full copies of the LXX date to around 350 A.D. this is 600-450 years removed from the LXX. It contains the Apocrypha, but different portions of it. Although it agrees on most, it still disagrees. Which one did the Apostles use?
3. Even if you take a leap of faith and say that LXX always contained the Apocrypha (which the evidence is not in favor of), this does not mean that they believed it to be inspired. Christians would often put writings that had religious value that they did not believe to be inspired on one Scroll. It is like that which is done today. The RSV contains the Apocrypha, but they do not believe it to be inspired. The NET Bible contains the Apocrypha (www.bible.org), but they did not believe it to be inspired. There are many many other cases of this practice throughout history.
4. Jesus and the Apostles NEVER quoted from it (unless you want to stretch the evidence to fit your view you are already convinced of). Even most honest Catholics will admit to this.
5. Josephus in the 1st century clearly used the LXX in his writing, but did not even hint at a knowledge of the Apocrypha when he listed the books of the Bible (what ax did Josephus have to grind? none. There was no canon controversy in his day).

In sum, here is where I am at: The evidence is strong that the LXX never contained the Apocrypha until post 2nd century. And even then, it does not necessitate the view that the writers believed them to be inspired. And even then, which LXX canon do we accept? They are all different.

The LXX seems to be the best evidence for the inclusion of the Apocrypha, but this does not bode well for its inclusion .

I guess that the only thing that someone would have to appeal to is the statements of certian church counsels and ignore others in the early church who did not include them. Ultimately, if this is all someone has, I guess they would have to punt to the infallibility of Church tradition. And if that doctrine is true, then they have no problem, Trent finalized it.

But I am not yet convinced of the infallibility of Tradition (although I do respect its intentions).

Thanks again for the great discussion. Sorry, I continue to argue, but it is an important issue that I truly want to understand. I am glad that you continue to struggle through the issues.

Again, do you know of any unbiased author that I could read that comes out in favor of the Apocrypha?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Katholikos:

Part 2

You said:

If you will not accept the Encyclopedia of Early Christianty as a reliable source of information … . you will not be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

JMJ Jay

I guess we all walk through the garden of history and pick the flowers that seem best to us and leave the others!! I could quote you many respected history fathers and counsels that do not include the Apocrypha. Also, I could quote many Protestant sources that reject the Apocrypha, but I will spare you since they are biased.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary is a liberal dictionary that is not trying to prove anything. You ought to read it and see what it has to say. (I guess the liberals are good for something–to give us an unbiased survey of certian things!!

Besides all this, I agree with the quote that you just gave. You are assuming that the LXX they are talking about contained the Apocrypha. I am sure that that book would problebly disagree.

 

[Katholikos]

The rules set by the Palestinian rabbis for the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures were designed to discredit the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which had been adopted by the first Christians. The rabbis knew that the (LXX) was the foundation for the Christian claims that Jesus was the Son of David, the Son of God, the Jewish Messiah.

To be accepted into their canon, the Palestinian rabbis at Jamnia (c. 90-100 A.D.) declared that a writing had to:

-conform to the Pentateuch,

-originate in Palestine,

-be written in Hebrew,

-date no later than 400 B.C.

Obviously, these criteria were aimed at the LXX. Since nothing was allowed in the canon of Hebrew Scriptures unless it was written in Hebrew, all of the writings in Greek which had no extant Hebrew counterpart were excluded, even if those writings were originally written in Hebrew; i.e., Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (originally part of Jeremiah), and 1 Maccabees. Of the rejected books, only the Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees originated in the Greek language.

Some of these writings in Hebrew were discovered at Qumran, which discredits the rabbis as well as Luther.

Different Christian groups accept different writings, for example:

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds four extra books to its New Testament, and another two (including 1 Enoch) to the Old Testament.

The Syrian Orthodox Church rejects 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscript that has come down to us (fourth century AD) includes Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.

As late as the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus included 1 & 2 Clement.

Reference: The Bible in the Making, Geddes MacGregor

The original Bible was that of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ (Mt 16:18-19) and led by the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1-2, et al.).

The Catholic Bible has 73 books, plus parts of Esther and Daniel, that are missing from Protestant Bibles.

Eastern Orthodox Churches have no single canon. They generally accept the same 73 books as Catholics, plus additional books varying in number from group to group. However, the Syrian Orthodox Church has fewer, as noted above.

Protestants have only 66 books (because of Luther’s cuts, explained previously).

So the Orthodox have both added to and*** subtracted from*** the original Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, and the Protestants have subtracted from it.

JMJ Jay

 

[RBushlow]

YAQUBOS:

Yaqubos

First, tell us when was the Canon determined? Where? Who affirmed this?

Peace be with you

 

[michaelp]

RBushlow:

First, tell us when was the Canon determined? Where? Who affirmed this?

Peace be with you

I don’t think any of you are really doing your research without bias. Maybe I am wrong, but at least I am willing to entertain the possibility of its inclusion. I just want HONEST information that comes from someone who has authentically struggled with the issues, not trying for go down “party lines” proving what they already believe. I think that we, as Christians, ought to be able to do this.

Let me ask you a question. On a scale of 1-10, based on the evidence, how sure are you that the Deuterocanonical books should be included the way the Roman Catholic church has them? As I said before, I am a 5 in favor of the Protestant canon.

Another question to the person who just asked me the who determined the canon (I have heard this one before and am not persuaded). I will answer your question if you answer mine: Who determined the canon of the Old Testament? An individual? An institution? If so, what institution? Did the community of God just recognize it through the guidence of the Holy Spirit?

BTW: I really don’t have any problem if the Apocrypha is part of Scripture. It really would not change any essential doctrine. If there are issues, I can worm my way around them. Hey, if I can get around Eccl. I can get around the Apocrypha and find use for it!!

Michael

 

[Psalm45_9]

michaelp:

I will answer your question if you answer mine: Who determined the canon of the Old Testament? An individual? An institution? If so, what institution? Did the community of God just recognize it through the guidence of the Holy Spirit?

The One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The community did not at first accept uncircumcised believers, so the bishops (who were the apostles) did the most Catholic thing there is, they held a council. At that council, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it was determinded that a man does not need to be circumcised to be a believer. The Old Testament Canon was disputed, and through various councils, the canon was determined. The canon included the deuterocanonicals as it still does today.

 

[michaelp]

Psalm45:9:

The One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The community did not at first accept uncircumcised believers, so the bishops (who were the apostles) did the most Catholic thing there is, they held a council. At that council, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it was determinded that a man does not need to be circumcised to be a believer. The Old Testament Canon was disputed, and through various councils, the canon was determined. The canon included the deuterocanonicals as it still does today.

Oh, that is interesting. I guess that Christ did not have a canon until the bishops came together and determined it. I wonder how He know which books to read. Maybe He had it wrong. I’m sorry, I just can’t help but joke.

I hope that you see how odd that answer sounds. It is obvious that there was a Old Testament canon in Christ’s day before the birth of the Church.

Listen guys, I am going to have to beat it for a while. Got a cold and need to spend some time with the kids.

You all have been gracious and given me much teaching material.

May God bless you all.

Michael

 

[Psalm45_9]

michaelp:

Oh, that is interesting. I guess that Christ did not have a canon until the bishops came together and determined it. I wonder how He know which books to read. Maybe He had it wrong. I’m sorry, I just can’t help but joke.

I hope that you see how odd that answer sounds. It is obvious that there was a Old Testament canon in Christ’s day before the birth of the Church.

(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).There are approximately 350 quotations in the New Testament of the Old Testament. Of these 350 quotations 300 come from the Greek Septuagint. It was the Old Testament Bible of the first century Christians. Jesus quoted from it. The Septuagint included the Deutero Canonical books which Protestants call the “Apocrypha.” The Jews in Ethiopia to this day still follow the same identical canon which is found in the Catholic Old Testament which includes these seven Deutero Canonical books "

(Zondervan Compact Bible Dictionary, 1993 Pg. 536)“The early Church, built largely on converts from the synagogues of the Greek speaking world, took over the LXX as their Bible”

(Jewish encyclopedia 1955 p. 593))" the appearance of the Septuagint (which the Jews of the Christian centuries rejected) was greeted enthusiasm everywhere; but with the rise of the Christian sect, and its adoption of the version of the Bible, the jews began to denounce it vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying the Greek texts this resentment eventually led Rabbi Zakkai and the council of Jamnia (or Javneh) to openly reject the Septuagint whitch contained the seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel)…The council rejected all of the New Testament as Apocrypha … They also required all Jews to curse the Name of Jesus of Nazerith."

(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1146)“There is no evidence that the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90A.D.), had the legitimate authority to determine scripture for the Jewish religion”

(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).“The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. **However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deutero Canonical books **”

(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1148)**."**Protestantism derives its Old Testament Canon from the European Jews who followed the Canon of the council of Jamnia or Javneh (90 CE.)."

 

[Psalm45_9]

michaelp:

Oh, that is interesting. I guess that Christ did not have a canon until the bishops came together and determined it. I wonder how He know which books to read.

Christ never quoted from: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. To this day, Judasim cannot agree on the canon, only the church can determine the canon.

 

[Katholikos]

michaelp:

I could quote you many respected history fathers and counsels that do not include the Apocrypha.

Then, please do it! Please quote the “history fathers” (do you mean Early Church Fathers?) and “counsels” (councils?) that you believe support your case.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary is a liberal dictionary that is not trying to prove anything. You ought to read it and see what it has to say. (I guess the liberals are good for something–to give us an unbiased survey of certian things!!

What? A “liberal dictionary” that isn’t trying to prove its POV? That’s a hoot. Since a dictionary entry can’t be very long, why don’t you just quote it? Let us see for ourselves that “liberals” have given us “an unbiased survey” on this question.

Besides all this, I agree with the quote that you just gave.

Which quote?

You are assuming that the LXX they are talking about contained the Apocrypha.

It’s documented historical fact.

I am sure that that book would problebly disagree.

Which book? The “unbiased” Anchor Bible Dictionary? If you have it, please quote it!

Your objection has been thoroughly rebutted by numerous quotes from authentically objective books such as the Encyclopedia Judaica and Zondervan [Protestant] Dictionary. Good work, Psalm 45:9!:clapping:

The historical facts speak loud and clear to anyone willing to listen to the objective evidence.

Protestant arguments were invented some 12 centuries after the Scriptures were canonized.

I’ll post the decree of the Council of Rome again just so there can be no doubt in your mind that the 46 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT were all canonized, without differentiation, at the same time. Thus the very first Bible was born. The Catholic Church is the mother, not the daughter, of the Bible. She was nearly 400 years old when she gave birth to the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

For michaelp (and everyone else that’s interested)

(COUNCIL OF ROME, 382 A.D., Pope Damasus I presiding.)

QUOTE:

THE “DECREE OF DAMASUS” from the Acts of the Roman Synod, in the year 382

The Canon of Sacred Scripture

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

"The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave [Joshua] one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books *, Paralipomenon two books *, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book [Song of Songs], likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book [aka Sirach].

Likewise the order of the Prophets*. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book [Hosea], Micheas [Micah] one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book [Obadiah], Jonas one book [Jonah], Nahum one book, Habacue one book [Habakkuk], Sophonias one book [Zephaniah], Aggeus one book [Haggai], Zacharias one book [Zechariah], Malachias one book [Malachi].

[Baruch isn’t mentioned because it was originally included in Jeremiah.]

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book [Tobit], Esdras two books [Ezra, Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books [Maccabees].

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book.

Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle, two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.

The canon of the New Testament ends here.
END QUOTE

Reference: Enchiridion Symbolorum – The Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Henry Denzinger, Thirtieth Edition, translated by Roy J. Deferrari, Marian House, Powers Lake, ND, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis and London, 1957

[Hebrew names in brackets were added by Jay Damien.]*

 

[Katholikos]

michaelp,

I have now posted the decree from the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., declaring the canon of Scripture for the first time. (I’d already noted that it was posted previously by someone else on this same thread.) Subsequent councils in 393 (Hippo) and Carthage (397) named the same canon of Scriptures, and the decree of Carthage was sent to Rome for approval. Pope Innocent I affirmed that these are the Scriptures of the Catholic Church in 405 – the beginning of the fifth century. The Church was by then nearly 400 years old.

Before this, no one knew for certain which writings were “Scripture” and which were not. Various Christians (Catholics) held varying opinions. But, guided by the Spirit, the Church established the rule – the canon.

You and I are unable – of our own knowledge – to discern which writings are the inspired word of God and which are not. Since God entrusted the Church with the work of writing the NT and of collecting, canonizing, and preserving his Word, thereby making the Church His Agent, what is your justification for not accepting the judgment of the Holy Spirit, exercised through the Church founded by Jesus Christ – God Himself?

The same Church that told us which Christian writings belong in the New Testament also told us which Jewish writings belong in the Old Testament. Protestants in the 16th century and subsequently have wrongly called some of these writings “Apocrypha.”

The Church calls them by their proper name, the name she gave them when she canonized them – Scripture, the inspired Word of God.

JMJ Jay

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

The Gospel came to the Early Christians by the oral teachings of the apostles. Apostolic Tradition is the Word of God.

Didn’t the apostles write anything?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

Didn’t the apostles write anything?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Pax Vobixcvm!

Yes! “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (John 21:25)

But they did not write every single thing that Jesus did and taught. The apostles taught the Church Fathers the teachings of Christ and how to interpret their writings. I remember in my poetry class how difficult it was to interpret the poetry that each student wrote. Everyone in the class had a different interpretation. But the author of the work was there and explained to us what the poem meant. After that, I can now tell anyone who read that poem how to interpret it, because the author told me himself. And now that person will be able to interpret it and tell other people what the author meant.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

RBushlow:

First, tell us when was the Canon determined? Where? Who affirmed this?

Peace be with you

The canon of what, RBushlow?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Pax Vobixcvm!

Yes! “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (John 21:25)

But they did not write every single thing that Jesus did and taught.

Is the Word of God JUST what Jesus said and did?

Jesus said:

“My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” ( John 5:17 )

God is always working, and the Christ also. So let’s think about: why all what God is doing and saying in these days is not being written down and added to the Bible?

This brings us back to that important question: WHAT IS THE WORD OF GOD?

Still wating to continue our topic by first answering the questions in the reply #45…
Psalm45:9:

The apostles taught the Church Fathers the teachings of Christ and how to interpret their writings. I remember in my poetry class how difficult it was to interpret the poetry that each student wrote. Everyone in the class had a different interpretation. But the author of the work was there and explained to us what the poem meant. After that, I can now tell anyone who read that poem how to interpret it, because the author told me himself. And now that person will be able to interpret it and tell other people what the author meant.

Yes. SCRIPTURE EXPLAINS SCRIPTURE. This means God explains what He said.

But before we examine this, let’s understand what the Word of God is.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobiscvm!

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

Is the Word of God JUST what Jesus said and did?

Jesus said:

“My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” ( John 5:17 )

God is always working, and the Christ also. So let’s think about: why all what God is doing and saying in these days is not being written down and added to the Bible?

1. Jesus is God. 2 The Word of God is also Apostolic Tradition. 3. Christ told the bishops (the apostles) that whatever they bind shall be bound in Heaven. The Bishops bound the canon shut. God is still working in the church, doctrines are still being proclaimed in light of Apostolic Tradition; which is the Word of God. To this day Divine Revelation has not ceased.

YAQUBOS:

This brings us back to that important question: WHAT IS THE WORD OF GOD?

The Word of God is God’s revelation to humanity. Which is the written testimony of the Prophets and Apostles, as well as the oral teachings and testimonies of the Apostles (who were taught by Christ himself) a.k.a. Apostolic Tradition.

YAQUBOS:

Yes. SCRIPTURE EXPLAINS SCRIPTURE. This means God explains what He said.

‘So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him… And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.’ (Acts 8:30-31, 34-35)

This is what the Catholic Bible says. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truth, St. Philip; who is a deacon, has been taught the Gospel by the oral teachings of the Apostles. So intern, the Holy Spirit is aiding the Eunuch in interpreting the scriptures, however, it is through the Apostolic Tradition taught to the Deacon. The Oral Gospel preceded the Written Gospel.

There is no list of what is scripture within the Bible

 

[Psalm45_9]

(continued)

Remember the warning of St. Peter in light of Christ’s teachings:

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

(The Holy Spirit works in the church, through Apostolic Tradition of the Bishops, not a lay man’s personal interpretation)

“You should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles… So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:2, 15-16)

(Laymen are not capable of correctly interpreting the scriptures)

‘"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ (Matthew 18:15-18)

I know that what I am quoting is scripture because the Bishops (the spiritual descendents of the apostles) have determined and bound the canon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is only the Bishops, whose teachings come from the apostles; know what is scripture and how to interpret it.