It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[guanophore]

Did not the apostles say they had received the Commandments of God? This as opposed to the commandments of men.

Exactly! This is why it is so confusing for me when I read posts like yours that say the
Roman Church invented" these things.

Paul states in 2 Thessalonians that men were to obey his epistle. Why? Because it was the word of God.

And in that same passage, he says that they are to obey the oral command equally. The Apsotles did not restrict the Word of God to Scripture.

1Th 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Peter said: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This is evidence they wrote infallibly since it was the very word of God.

Yes. Infallibity applies to actions. It presupposes the possibilty of fallbility. One can only act infallibly if one is moved by the HS.

However, as yankee already stated above, no man today writes infallibly because there can be no apostles today.

There are plenty of infallible writings (without error). the fact that the canon is closed does not mean nothing true has been written since.

There are no more written Scriptures. The canon is closed. Where does the Bible say men can speak infallibly today?

The Apostles continued to preach and teach without error and they passed the authority to do so to their successors, the bishops. In order to prevent the the Church from passing through the gates of hell (teaching error) infallibility is necessary. Human beings cannot prevent themselves from falling into error. This requires divine intervention.

 

[JacobG]

JacobG

Where in the Bible does it say that “The Bible” speaks infallibly. And, if you look closely at what you are saying, you yourself are saying that man speaks infallibly. The first case is YOU!

This is your quote: Paul states in 2 Thessalonians that men were to obey his epistle. Why? Because it was the word of God.

First, you just made an infallible proclamation that your interpretation of Paul’s writing in the Bible are what YOU say they mean. “men are to obey the epistles because they are the word of God”. This is an absolute statement by you that you proclaim is the truth. Only an infallible man could make a statement like this and it be the Truth from God.

Second, your proclamations are only theory. I quote you, "This is evidence they wrote infallibly since it was the very word of God. What you proclaim as evidence, is not evidence of the Truth, but evidence to support your interpretation of a bibl verse, you theory in otherwords.

Who are you that I should believe your interpretations of the Bible? Have you been sent by God to tell all mankind?

Where in the Bible does it say that “The Bible” speaks infallibly

.

Do you or do you not believe the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God? If you do believe it is, then it is INFALLIBLE because its God’s very Word…“God-Breathed”. If you need to have it spelled out in the Bible that the very words in this Holy Book is inspired and perfect, then how can you claim to be a true Christian?

First, you just made an infallible proclamation that your interpretation of Paul’s writing in the Bible are what YOU say they mean. “men are to obey the epistles because they are the word of God”

This is what the apostle Paul said: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thess. 3:14). Paul recognized that what he wrote was scripture. Peter also said this. Paul’s epistles were spread and read in the churches. These churches accepted them as scripture.

Since God’s word is truth and Jesus is the very Word, then for one to proclaim it as such does NOT mean one is infallible. You give man power or authority which man does not have. Its the Holy Spirit who reveals these Truth to the Christian. The Holy Spirit is infallible, not you or I or anybody. The pope may claim he can speak infallibly but he himself is not infallible. If he recognizes God’s word as truth, it is because the Holy Spirit reveals it. The pope does not have a monopoly on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is given to all born-again believers in Jesus Christ.

 

[Lampo]

Do you or do you not believe the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God?

Catholics believe the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God and we can tell you why. Why do *you *believe that it is? Because the Bible tells you so? The Koran also says *it *is the inspired Word of God. Do you believe the Koran too? If not, why do you choose to believe the Christian Bible and not the Koran?

 

[hillsteven]

Alright, I’m brand new to CA, but I’ll jump in here…

…Assuming Christ said a lot more and even taught more, which I do not believe He taught more…

DerekD, you keep attempting to assert that we cannot know that he taught more. I assume that by this you are asking the implied question “Where is THAT in the Bible?”

Okay, for argument’s sake, I’ll show one of a few places where we can KNOW that Jesus taught more to the Apostles than what’s written explicitly in the Gospels:

Acts 1:2-3 states:
[bibledrb]Acts 1:2-3[/bibledrb]

You then go on to ask:

…where do we look with certainty of divine revelation outside of the Bible and how do you know it is of God and not the devil?

That question, for Catholics, is quite easy to answer. We go to the Deposit of Faith, as passed on faithfully from the original Apostles through our Bishops of today via Apostolic Succession. The validity of said Apostolic Succession, however real, is, however, a topic for a different thread. If you’re part of CA, you have the same access to that information as the rest of us, so to claim to be unwilling (as someone did about a link earlier) to follow a link to a thread WITHIN this website, or to fail to look for answers within this website shows that you are close-minded and intent on tackling issues you think you can win on, rather than seeking truthful and reasoned answers to valid questions. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. (I’m not trying to be offensive, so please do not take that as such!!) Too, I would invite you to read, for yourself, the writings of the earliest fathers of the Church. We can see what they believed quite clearly about this and many other topics on Faith, Morals, Doctrine, and Liturgy. Interestingly, we can also trace those same beliefs forward through the fabric of history to a church that is still in existence today, and faithfully practicing those beliefs. That church is, in fact, the Catholic Church. But I digress. if you want to discuss the contents of THIS paragraph, that needs to be done elsewhere on this forum, and I will not address them here. (That’s why there are dozens - hundreds of threads… go find the one you want to learn about or discuss!)

I find it interesting to note, however, that the point of this thread is that we, as Catholics (and many of us converts, like myself), have a valid point in asking you non-Catholics the very same question. You claim that the Bible ALONE is your sole authority for matters of Faith and Morals. Okay, prove it. If that’s the case, then the Bible ALONE must be able to defend that statement, in any iteration. More to the point, it must do so explicitly, not implicitly.

We are asking, quite simply, for you to show us which chapter/verse (or even group of chapters/verses) tell us that the Bible ALONE has sole authority. In order to make a successful argument, you must also prove that Bible accounts for further writings, but ONLY those writings we currently understand to be part of the Canon of the Bible. if you wonder why you have been asked for a list of which books are included in the Bible, this is the answer to that unasked question.

The Canon of the Bible was closed during the Council of Hippo. (I have a quote somewhere from that Council declaring the books of the Bible.) That council was (as all Councils are dating back to the Jerusalem Council we read accounts of in Acts) comprised of the Council of Bishops. Catholic Bishops. Again, you have read that the Bible is a distinctly Catholic book. That’s why we say that. These Bishops were, of course, inspired by the Holy Spirit in there discernment of the hundreds of Epistles and Gospels that were commonly read in the Liturgy throughout Christendom. Again, if you want to delve into the topic of this paragraph in depth, there are other threads on this forum for that, and if there are not, start one!

So, since I can understand why you would feel that it is readily obvious that the Bible is inspired, as you have a nice red/black/brown, etc. copy of it all bound and neat, perhaps with nice gilt edges on the pages, and everyone you know has a copy that looks much the same, you need to understand the history of how that book came to be understood as the Inspired Word. Or put more simply, you need to understand the history of how that book came to be!

Again, I find myself getting off-topic, but I do so in order to bring some relevance to the question that CM so succinctly stated. Where, in the Bible, do you see that it (The Bible)is the ONLY source of authoritative and infallible teaching? You will find no arguments here that it is authoritative and infallible. That is not in question. The Bible states clearly as others have pointed out that there are, in fact, many instances in scripture that point, both explicitly and implicitly, to the reality that there are other sources for valid authority (the Church and Tradition). You must also, to give us and the 2,000 years worth of Catholic men and women cause that we are wrong, show how those verses are somehow in line with Sola Scriptura, yet still valid. (A tall order to be sure!)

I’ve read over 200 posts on this thread, and have yet to see this addressed.

 

[hillsteven]

.
This is what the apostle Paul said: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thess. 3:14). Paul recognized that what he wrote was scripture. Peter also said this. Paul’s epistles were spread and read in the churches. These churches accepted them as scripture.

Interesting that you make this point. (Bold/Italics above). Which epistles of Paul’s were read? Only the ones that we read today, or did they read other of his epistles and accept them as scripture? We know for a fact that what we read as 1 Corinthians is, in fact, NOT the first letter he wrote to them, as he references at least one earlier letter. How, then, do you know (or do you?) that the only letters read as scripture were the ones you read today?

It should also be noted as a point of interest that Pope Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians (he was the third successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome) was read for over 100 years in the church of Corinth, among others, as inspired scripture, yet we do not have it as part of our Bible today. My point here is that you can only know in hindsight which books are inspired because you have them in a nice neat compilation in front of you. Take a learned man who has never read the Bible, spread out all the epistles and Gospel accounts still in extant today in front of him, and see if he comes to the same conclusions, out of context, (i.e. not knowing the history and widespread use of each) and see which ones he determines to be “Divinely Inspired”

 

[hillsteven]

Yes scripture wasn’t just written by the apostles but also prophets and eyewitnesses. That’s the one main criteria: one had to be an eyewitness.

Really? eyewitnesses… hrmm… Where was Luke while Jesus taught the Beatitudes? Where was Mark when Jesus cast the demon(s) called Legion out of the man in the graveyard? My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe that neither of them was an eyewitness, and yet none of us here dismiss these Gospel accounts as anything other than Divinely Inspired. It is commonly accepted, in fact, that Mark’s Gospel account was given to him by Peter in Rome.

So much for your eyewitness theory. The first two books of the New Testament, and Gospels no less, and we are already relying on a second-hand account. Would you throw these onto the dustbin of non-authentic accounts then? I think not, and yet even these do not fit your criteria!

Back to the topic at hand: Nobody here (I HOPE!!) seriously contends that the Bible is NOT Divinely inspired. The question of this thread, I believe, that we Catholics ask of you non-Catholics is where you get, from Scripture, the notion that Scripture ALONE is our only source of authority?

 

[RedBert]

Catholics believe the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God and we can tell you why. Why do *you *believe that it is? Because the Bible tells you so? The Koran also says *it *is the inspired Word of God. Do you believe the Koran too? If not, why do you choose to believe the Christian Bible and not the Koran?

This is an Aplogetics 101 question: and any person with a BASIC understanding aplogetics should be able to answer this.

hint: the anwser is NOT “because the Church said so.”

You can goolge as well as anyone else for the answer if you didn’t know:
equip.org/perspectives/bible-authority
gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html
carm.org/christianity/bible/bible-isnt-word-god-it-contains-word-god

etc etc

Bible Reliability-Prophecy

The third principle of Bible reliability is Prophecy, or predictive ability. The Bible records predictions of events that could not be known or predicted by chance or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument (by liberals) against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that the prophecies actually were written after the events and that editors had merely dressed up the Bible text to look like they contained predictions made before the events. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. The many predictions of Christ’s birth, life and death (see below) were indisputably rendered more than a century before they occurred as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah and other prophetic books as well as by the Septuagint translation, all dating from earlier than 100 B.C.

Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21).

Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill — such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24); His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of His hands and feet at the crucifixion (Ps. 22:16); the soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18); the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22). Predictive Prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!

equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
**
The Koran does not pass this test.**

But the main most important, above all other reasons is that Jesus who basically said he was God in the flesh AND rose from the dead, said it was.

Matt 15:6, “he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”
Mark 7:13, “thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken).”

 

[Lampo]

This is an Aplogetics 101 question: and any person with a BASIC understanding aplogetics should be able to answer this.

hint: the anwser is NOT "because the Church said so.

Care to dumb it down for me and summarize why you believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God in your own words? Thanks so much.

 

[RedBert]

Care to dumb it down for me and summarize why you believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God in your own words? Thanks so much.

But the main most important, above all other reasons is that Jesus who basically said he was God in the flesh AND rose from the dead, said it was.

 

[Lampo]

This is an Aplogetics 101 question: and any person with a BASIC understanding aplogetics should be able to answer this.

hint: the anwser is NOT “because the Church said so.”

You can goolge as well as anyone else for the answer if you didn’t know:
equip.org/perspectives/bible-authority
gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html
carm.org/christianity/bible/bible-isnt-word-god-it-contains-word-god

etc etc

Bible Reliability-Prophecy

The third principle of Bible reliability is Prophecy, or predictive ability. The Bible records predictions of events that could not be known or predicted by chance or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument (by liberals) against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that the prophecies actually were written after the events and that editors had merely dressed up the Bible text to look like they contained predictions made before the events. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. The many predictions of Christ’s birth, life and death (see below) were indisputably rendered more than a century before they occurred as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah and other prophetic books as well as by the Septuagint translation, all dating from earlier than 100 B.C.

Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21).

Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill — such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24); His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of His hands and feet at the crucifixion (Ps. 22:16); the soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18); the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22). Predictive Prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!

equip.org/articles/bible-reliability

---

There are also prophecies in the following books and letters. Why weren’t they considered the inspired, inerrant Word of God?
1.1 The Epistles of Jesus to Abgarus
2. Pseudo-apostolic (general) apocrypha
2.1 Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (Didache)
2.2 Epistle of the Apostles

1. Pseudo-apostolic (specific - by Apostle) apocrypha
   3.1 - Andrew -
   3.1.1 Acts of Andrew
   3.1.2 Acts of Andrew and Matthias*

3.2 - Barnabas -
3.2.1 Acts of Barnabas*
3.2.2 Epistle of Barnabas
3.2.3 Gospel of Barnabas

3.3 - Bartholomew -
3.3.1 Gospel of Bartholomew
3.3.2 Martyrdom of Bartholomew*

3.4 - James -
3.4.1 Apocryphon of James
3.4.2 Book of James (protevangelium)
3.4.3 First Apocalypse of James
3.4.4 Second Apocalypse of James

3.5 - John -
3.5.1 Acts of John
3.5.2 Acts of John the Theologian*
3.5.3 Apocryphon of John (long version)
3.5.4 Book of John the Evangelist
3.5.5 Revelation of John the Theologian*

3.6 - Mark -
3.6.1 Secret Gospel of Mark

3.7 - Matthew -
3.7.1 Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle*
3.7.2 The Martyrdom of Matthew

3.8 - Nicodemus -
3.8.1 Gospel (Acts) of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pontius Pilate)

3.9 - Peter -
3.9.1 Acts of Peter
3.9.2 Acts of Peter and Andrew
3.9.3 Apocalypse of Peter - version 1
3.9.4 Apocalypse of Peter - version 2
3.9.5 Gospel of Peter
3.9.6 Letter of Peter to Philip

3.10 - Philip -
3.10.1 Acts of Philip
3.10.2 Gospel of Philip

3.11 - Thaddeus -
3.11.1 Acts of Thaddeus (Epistles of Pontius Pilate)*
3.11.2 Teaching of Thaddeus

3.12 - Thomas -
3.12.1 Acts of Thomas
3.12.2 Apocalypse of Thomas
3.12.3 Book of Thomas the Contender
3.12.4 Consumation of Thomas
3.12.5 Gospel of Thomas

 

[Lampo]

(con’t)

1. Pseudo-Pauline apocrypha
   4.1 3 Corinthians
   4.2 Acts 29
   4.3 Acts of Paul
   4.4 Acts of Paul and Thecla
   4.5 Acts of Peter and Paul*
   4.6 Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena
   4.7 Apocalypse of Paul
   4.8 Apocalypse of Paul - other version
   4.9 Epistle to the Laodiceans
   4.10 Revelation of Paul*
   4.11 Paul and Seneca
2. Infancy Gospels apocrypha
   5.1 Arabic Infancy Gospel
   5.2 First Infancy Gospel of Jesus Christ
   5.3 Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
   5.4 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek A
   5.5 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek B
   5.6 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Latin
3. Relatives of Jesus apocrypha
   6.1 Gospel of Mary
   6.2 Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
   6.3 Book of John concerning the dormition of Mary (transitus mariæ)*
   6.4 History of Joseph the Carpenter*
   6.5 Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
4. Sub-canonical (disputed canon) apocrypha
   7.1 Shepherd of Hermas
   7.2 II Clement
   7.3 Diatession
   7.4 Gospel of the Lord (Marcion)
5. Other significant Epistles and pseudomynous writings and apocrypha
   8.1 I Clement
   8.2 Avenging of the Saviour
   8,3 Epistles of Pontius Pilate
   8.4 Letter of Aristeas
   8.5 Sentences of the Sextus
   8.6 Alexandrians
   8.7 Revelations of Stephen
   8.8 Muratonian Canon (fragment)
6. Fragments of lost apocryphal books
   9.1 Gospel of the Ebionites
   9.2 Gospel of the Egyptians
   9.3 Egerton Gospel (Egerton Papyrus 2)*
   9.4 Gospel of the Hebrews
   9.5 Traditions of Mattias
   9.6 Gospel of the Nazaraeans
   9.7 Preaching of Peter

The Koran does not pass this test.

Matt 15:6, “he is not to honor his father or his mother.
And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

Please put that in context. Here is what comes before that: (Matt. 15:1-6)
"Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? 2 They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal.” He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of God 3 for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.'4 But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

Mark 7:13, "thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

So all traditions handed down invalidate the word of God?

John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)."

Again, CONTEXT! This is speaking of the divinity of Christ!
" The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him.
32
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?”
33
The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.”
34
15 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?
35
If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,
36
can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37
If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me;
38
but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

 

[nuntym]

But the main most important, above all other reasons is that Jesus who basically said he was God in the flesh AND rose from the dead, said it was.

Jesus said that the Bible with 46 Old Testament books and and 27 New Testament books is the infallible, inerrant, Word of God? Care to tell us where He said that?

Or wait, is it the Bible with 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books?

Or is it the Bible with 39 Old Testament books and 23 New Testament books which Luther wanted?

 

[Lampo]

But the main most important, above all other reasons is that Jesus who basically said he was God in the flesh AND rose from the dead, said it was.

Where do you find Him saying this? In the Bible. So you DO believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God because the Bible tells you so. In the passages where Jesus said He was God; and the passages where it describes His Resurrection; where does it say those passages are the inspired, inerrant word of God?

 

[RedBert]

Lampo:
it come down to this:

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies,

The Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 (based on an internal reference to Pope Pius I and arguments put forth by Bruce Metzger) and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary), provides the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream (that is, not Marcionite) Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.

etc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Canonization

Most of your long list of books were never accepted as God Breathed

 

[Lampo]

Lampo:
it come down to this:

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies,

The Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 (based on an internal reference to Pope Pius I and arguments put forth by Bruce Metzger) and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary), provides the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream (that is, not Marcionite) Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.

etc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Canonization

Most of your long list of books were never accepted as God Breathed

Revisionist history? Wikipedia? Wikipedia also says:

Council of Rome

This historical synod at Rome gained additional importance long afterwards. According to a document appended to some manuscripts of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or “Gelasian Decretal” and given separately in others, at this council the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal. The document was first connected to this council of Rome in 1794, when Fr. Faustino Arevalo (1747-1824), the editor of Coelius Sedulius, expressed his theory that the first three of the five chapters of the Decretum were really the decrees of a Roman council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382.

Arevalo’s conclusions were widely accepted, and the text of these first three chapters, given the title of “The Roman Council under Damasus” have often been reprinted. On this theory the so-called “Damasine List” would be the earliest Western list of the Biblical canon promulgated by a council, two years earlier than the publication of the first installment of the Latin Vulgate.

Council of Hippo

At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including some of the books later classed by Protestants as Apocrypha).

Council of Carthage

The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[4] on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, “Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Hippo#Council_of_Hippo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage

 

[RedBert]

the point is and was

Most of your long list of books were never accepted as God Breathed .

i am so tired of over explaining things here : you all word parse to death a single word and have no discernment on a point.

 

[Lampo]

the point is and was

Most of your long list of books were never accepted as God Breathed .

i am so tired of over explaining things here : you all word parse to death a single word and have no discernment on a point.

I get and did get your point. Who determined my long list of books not to be God breathed?

 

[CoachSTL]

Lampo:
it come down to this:

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies,

The Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 (based on an internal reference to Pope Pius I and arguments put forth by Bruce Metzger) and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary), provides the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream (that is, not Marcionite) Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.

etc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Canonization

Most of your long list of books were never accepted as God Breathed

RedBert,

Your summation is only yours or someones else’s theory. Just a theory, nothing more. It has truth in words, but not content.

*Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.*

The Catholic Church proclamations as to how the Bible came into being is a teaching of history. It happened at the Council of Hippo. The accurate question that needs to be addressed, in order to see the truth about the Bible is this;

(a) WHO were these Bishops, and where did they get the Divine Authority to make the claim that certain books would be the written Word of God? Someone gave them Divine Authority, WHO was it?

Then, when that question is answered, the next one is this;

(a) WHAT Christianity did these Bishops teach? and WHERE did their Christian Teaching originate?

 

[RedBert]

Catholics “gave” us the Bible like Columbus “discovered” America

 

[Lampo]

Catholics “gave” us the Bible like Columbus “discovered” America

Please tell who it was then? (not who discovered America)