N
Nicea325
Guest
**What were the key points as to what to accept? **I don’t think anyone disputes the assembling of the canon. But what were the key points as to what to accept?
One was that the letters were read aloud in weekly assemblies.
The letters were already being read within the churches before the canon was assembled.
If they are so inspired, why not add them to the Catholic Bible versions?
And who made those determinations Shawn? The farmer? The blacksmith? No! The CHURCH through its bishops,no way around it.
**One was that the letters were read aloud in weekly assemblies. **
Yes the ones that made that made the final canon,which by the way did not EXIST until 300+ years later. And what you fail to mention or acknowledge is that there were tons of other letters were being read as well. Precisely why a set canon was needed and it is the CHURCH who decided.
The letters were already being read within the churches before the canon was assembled
And that argument does not prove an iota of anything,because there was a time were NO letters existed. The above statement is used commonly by Bible-Only believers to prove as if the Bible were the sole authority before the canon,which is a false premise. Secondly, you only are referring to the ones in our current Bibles,but as stated,other letters existed as well,which do not exist in our current Bibles. Who decided what books belonged in the canon? The CHURCH through its bishops.
If they are so inspired, why not add them to the Catholic Bible versions
If I am correct,only one book ever make such a declaration of being inspired,the rest were determined by the CHURCH. Again Shawn,one can deny historical facts,but still will not change how we got our canon.