My response to a Catholic challenge

[RBushlow]

JPrejean:

I, for one, am “bright enough” to see that this statement clearly implies either intellectual dishonesty or failure to use our intelligence, and I happen to consider all of these charges of intellectual cowardice, intellectual dishonesty, and sheer ignorance to be quite “venomous.” Unless you’re going to document and demonstrate by a logical argument (as opposed to your blatantly irrational assertions) that these charges are substantiated in some way, they remain completely unwarranted personal attacks on the character and intelligence of everyone who has participated in this discussion.

All, Let us not become upset because our brother BouleTheou has hardened his hard and will not receive the Truth. That is not up to the Holy Spirit, not us. We can only sow the seed. The Holy Spirit is the one who will prepare the soil.

Oremus. Heavenly Father please send the Holy Spirit to touch the heart of our brother BouleTheou. Give him eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to receive the Fullness of Truth. We pray this in the name of our Savior Jesus Christ who lives and reins with You and the Holy Spirit, world without end, Amen. Let us now in peace to Love and Serve the Lord.

Your Brother in Christ.

 

[BouleTheou]

Chris -

Quote:
Originally Posted by BouleTheou
*Whatever books were received by God’s people as the Word of God are Scripture. This was done without the existence of an infallible teaching office in the OT, the same in the NT.

BouleTheou*

Not sure if I made this point in the previous post:

How do you figure the NT was “received by God’s people as the Word of God”…“without the existance of an infallible teaching office”?

That is exactly what the Scripture says, you quoted it almost word for word: hence, your argument is with the inspired Word of God, not me.

**1 Thessalonians 2:13 - “**And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

Why don’t you ask that question of God since He’s the one who said it was received by God’s people as the Word of God without an infallible teaching office. Surely you are not going to suggest that the apostles were infallible are you? If so, then how often were they infallible? You’ve read Galatians 2 right?

Unless you have found all the original manuscripts that have been thought to be lost for centuries, then you do no have a NT (other than the documents provided by the Catholic Church, which are an translation of the original texts).

The Catholic Church you are speaking of has provided me no texts of the originals. Early Christians and later Protestant Biblical scholarship is who has done this. If you are seriously going to dispute the purity of the text of the Bible we possess, then I know for a fact that you’ve never studied the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the text of the Bible. This book by Bruce Metzger will clear up any doubt you may have on the subject: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198261586/qid=1098128066/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2280580-7148911?v=glance&s=books

The documents contained in the NT are not all of the documents that existed at the time. Rather the NT contains only the texts that the Catholic Church, employing the very authority you now deny, determined should be considered by God’s people to be divinely inspired.

The Church did not determine what books were inspired, Chris. That is a myth. They simply collected all of the book which had already been received by the Christian people as Scripture and which were already functioning in the Church as Scripture.

You have no NT canon outside of the Catholic Church, because you have no NT outside of the Catholic Church,

Again, your error is to equate the organization you belong to today: The Modern Roman Catholic Church with the catholic church of ancient times - and I reject that claim on innumerable gounds both Biblical and historical. Start another thread on that issue if you’d like to discuss it. Your organization in no way, shape, or form gave me the NT itself or its canon.

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

BouleTheou:

Chris -
That is exactly what the Scripture says, you quoted it almost word for word: hence, your argument is with the inspired Word of God, not me.

**1 Thessalonians 2:13 - “**And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

Why don’t you ask that question of God since He’s the one who said it was received by God’s people as the Word of God without an infallible teaching office. Surely you are not going to suggest that the apostles were infallible are you? If so, then how often were they infallible? You’ve read Galatians 2 right?
The Catholic Church you are speaking of has provided me no texts of the originals. Early Christians and later Protestant Biblical scholarship is who has done this. If you are seriously going to dispute the purity of the text of the Bible we possess, then I know for a fact that you’ve never studied the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the text of the Bible. This book by Bruce Metzger will clear up any doubt you may have on the subject: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198261586/qid=1098128066/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2280580-7148911?v=glance&s=books
The Church did not determine what books were inspired, Chris. That is a myth. They simply collected all of the book which had already been received by the Christian people as Scripture and which were already functioning in the Church as Scripture. No status, authority, or certainty of inspiration was given to those books which they did not already possess.

Again, your error is to equate the organization you belong to today: The Modern Roman Catholic Church with the catholic church of ancient times - and I reject that claim on innumerable gounds both Biblical and historical. Start another thread on that issue if you’d like to discuss it. Your organization in no way, shape, or form gave me the NT itself or its canon.

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

Chris -

You asked:

How do you figure the NT was “received by God’s people as the Word of God”…“without the existance of an infallible teaching office”?

That is exactly what the Scripture says, you quoted it almost word for word: hence, your argument is with the inspired Word of God, not me.

**1 Thessalonians 2:13 - “**And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

Why don’t you ask that question of God since He’s the one who said it was received by God’s people as the Word of God without an infallible teaching office. Surely you are not going to suggest that the apostles were infallible are you? If so, then how often were they infallible? You’ve read Galatians 2 right?

Unless you have found all the original manuscripts that have been thought to be lost for centuries, then you do no have a NT (other than the documents provided by the Catholic Church, which are an translation of the original texts). The documents contained in the NT are not all of the documents that existed at the time. Rather the NT contains only the texts that the Catholic Church, employing the very authority you now deny, determined should be considered by God’s people to be divinely inspired.

The Catholic Church you are speaking of has provided me no texts of the originals. Early Christians and later Protestant Biblical scholarship is who has done this. If you are seriously going to dispute the purity of the text of the Bible we possess, then I know for a fact that you’ve never studied the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the text of the Bible. This book by Bruce Metzger will clear up any doubt you may have on the subject: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198261586/qid=1098128066/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2280580-7148911?v=glance&s=books

You have no NT canon outside of the Catholic Church, because you have no NT outside of the Catholic Church, Boule.

The Church did not determine what books were inspired, Chris. That is a myth. They simply collected all of the book which had already been received by the Christian people as Scripture and which were already functioning in the Church as Scripture.

Again, your error is to equate the organization you belong to today: The Modern Roman Catholic Church with the catholic church of ancient times - and I reject that claim on innumerable gounds both Biblical and historical. Start another thread on that issue if you’d like to discuss it. Your organization in no way, shape, or form gave me the NT itself or its canon.

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

RBushlow -

All, Let us not become upset because our brother BouleTheou has hardened his hard and will not receive the Truth.

I wasn’t aware that one could harden their hard. But apparently, I’ve done so and didn’t know it… :ehh:

How about making an argument?

BouleTheou

 

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

Chris -
That is exactly what the Scripture says, you quoted it almost word for word: hence, your argument is with the inspired Word of God, not me.

**1 Thessalonians 2:13 - “**And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

Why don’t you ask that question of God since He’s the one who said it was received by God’s people as the Word of God without an infallible teaching office.

I think you know very well I am not debating whether or not the Bible is the inspired Word of God, Boule. I am asking you how you determined which of the many manuscripts of the era are to be considered the Word of God.

BouleTheou:

The Catholic Church you are speaking of has provided me no texts of the originals. Early Christians and later Protestant Biblical scholarship is who has done this. If you are seriously going to dispute the purity of the text of the Bible we possess, then I know for a fact that you’ve never studied the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the text of the Bible. This book by Bruce Metzger will clear up any doubt you may have on the subject: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198261586/qid=1098128066/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2280580-7148911?v=glance&s=books

The Church did not determine what books were inspired, Chris. That is a myth. They simply collected all of the book which had already been received by the Christian people as Scripture and which were already functioning in the Church as Scripture.

I think you are also aware that I am not disputing the purity of the texts of the Bible, Boule. But, does there exist somewhere a compilation of complete texts that precede the documents that resulted from the Coucil of Carthage? Perhaps I am ignorant about this, but I am told those are the earliest texts in existance, and they just so happen to be a Catholic Translation. So which documents are Protestant scholars examining when evaluating the current documents? Furthermore, why do you suppose the Council of Carthage undertook the task of creating an authoritative list of which manuscripts were to be incliuded in the canon, if it was so plainly obvious to all Christians of the day? And is it merely by coincidence that you happen to agree with that decision?

BouleTheou:

Again, your error is to equate the organization you belong to today: The Modern Roman Catholic Church with the catholic church of ancient times - and I reject that claim on innumerable gounds both Biblical and historical. Start another thread on that issue if you’d like to discuss it. Your organization in no way, shape, or form gave me the NT itself or its canon.

BouleTheou

I am at a loss here. This is very much on topic, Boule. You are arguing that you have the ability as an individual to determine the canon of the Bible. Yet when I challenge you to describe how it is you determined that for yourself outside of the use of the Catholic translation, you tell me I need to start another thread to get my answer?

Let’s suppose for a minute that the Catholic Church today is not the same as the Catholic Church at the time of the Council of Carthage, which seems to be where you’re heading. Would it be fair to say then, that the NT you have today is in fact taken from the compilation and translation of that “Old Catholic Church” (the identity of which you and I would dispute)?

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

Your organization in no way, shape, or form gave me the NT itself or its canon.

BouleTheou

In his treatment of canonicity, R. C. Sproul, a Protestant scholar of the first order, and a card-carrying proponent of Sola Sriptura/Sola Fide, disagrees with you entirely.

Nobody (except people who have created the myth of a pure, primitive Church which was driven underground by the Whore of Babylon) doubts the historical continuity from the Church of the first three centuries to the Catholic Church we know today, or that this Church was the cradle of Sacred Scripture. Even Luther understood that we all owe the Catholic Church a debt of gratitude for producing the New Testament.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

BT,

If you would like to debate one of the other doctrines we can start a new thread and see how they are

1. not inconsistent with scripture
2. not explicit but implicit (the same as pornography being evil is not explicit in the bible)
   3 could be considered part of the oral tradition

You spoke interestingly about apostolic authority and the NT. Do you believe that which was spoken and taught by the apostles is infallible? Then why do you not follow what is written in the didache (the teachings of the apostles)?

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[JPrejean]

RBushlow:

All, Let us not become upset because our brother BouleTheou has hardened his hard and will not receive the Truth.

I’m certainly not upset, and I’m not in the business of judging others’ hearts. My reference to “spewing venom” referred to his actual remarks, not his subjective intent in making them. I do join your prayer that he will one day obtain full participation in the Catholic Church.

BouleTheou:

The Church did not determine what books were inspired, Chris. That is a myth. They simply collected all of the book which had already been received by the Christian people as Scripture and which were already functioning in the Church as Scripture.

More equivocation. What do you mean by “functioning in the Church as Scripture?” If you mean sola scriptura, then this certainly was not the case. As far as the reception of the books by “the Christian people,” no New Testament scholar worth his salt would posit that there was unanimity on the canonicity and/or apostolicity of various books by the time of the Apostle John’s death (and neither F.F. Bruce nor Bruce Metzger make such a claim). There are plenty of canonical books whose canonicity was doubted, and others outside the canon that were believed to be canonical.
F.F. Bruce:

The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’, were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority. Athanasius in 367 lays down the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical; shortly afterwards Jerome and Augustine followed his example in the West. The process farther east took a little longer; it was not until c. 508 that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were included in a version of the Syriac Bible in addition to the other twenty two books.

bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html

 

[David_Gar]

Indeed, they did, and Jesus rebuked them for it because it nullified the Word of God. Mark 7, Matthew 15.

Ask your self how is God? the answer is he is how he is. He is a God with his own ideas. That why he send his son so that we may know the Father or God.

Jesus had to correct the Jews because back then they did not know Father as we do through Jesus Christ (holy Tradition that come form Christ and bible).

God knows thought of man and the hearts of man (man is a person). God is all knowing and wise that why he left his church and his disciples to teach and so no one will go astray (with different ideas what the bible means). God did not just left the bible and said, “read it and you will be save”. The church and the disciples of disciples put together the bible with guides of the holy sprite for the church. It is also true that first disciples were inspired to write down the gospels. Time of Christ and long time even after the dark ages most people did not have books or bibles even the people relied on tradition.

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

porthos11:

Or let’s just take the first century Jews. Not only did they disagree on interpretation, but they disagreed on the canon as well. The Pharisees accepted the Tanakh. The Sadducees accepted the Torah only. The Hellenists accepted the Septuagint. The Pharisees believed in angels (based on the writings of the Prophets). Not the Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection. Not the Sadducees. All Jews, different opinions.

And don’t forget. They did need an infallible interpreter. He came in the person of Christ (you don’t get more infallible than God himself). While it was indeed ideal that the Jews knew both the canon (which hadn’t been set for the Jews till the Council of Jamnia c. AD 95) and proper interpretation, it’s clear they failed, as the first poster cites. That’s why Jesus gave them the infallible interpretation. The first post doesn’t disprove the need for an infallible interpreter. It reinforces it.

“The Church of the living God…the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[BouleTheou]

ChrisW -

1. What “Catholic translation” are you talking about?
2. The Protestant scholars and textual critics work with the original Greek that Paul, John, and Peter wrote. We’re not relying on a translation - ??
3. You ignored 1 Thess 2:13. That answers the how question. Please tell me what you think that passage means, why you ignored it, and why you think it is inadequate to do exactly what the passage says. I agree with the original recipients of the Word of God as to what it is.

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

David Gar -

[sigh]… instead of reproducing every verse in the New Testament wherein we find the term “traditions,” why not tell us what these traditions actually are and how they differ from what we have in Scripture. Do that, and you’ve defeated Sola Scriptura.

BouleTheou

 

[hlgomez]

We receive the same books the people of God in the OT did. You are the ones who added 7 un-inspired books in April of 1546. The name “deuterocanonical” is what it is for a reason. They are not protocanonical.

Are you sure with “your” history? You have made the BIGGEST LIE ever in the world. There is nothing else I can describe it. It’s the funniest, trickiest, baseless lie ever. I will label it as: pure HEARSAY. Read more about history… read more… do your homework well…

Pio

 

[BouleTheou]

hlgomez -

Are you sure with “your” history? You have made the BIGGEST LIE ever in the world. There is nothing else I can describe it. Read more about history… read more… do your homework well…

[chuckle] - ok. Bearing the nihil obstat (latin: “nothing objectionable”) and imprimatur (latin: “let it be printed”) of the Roman Catholic Church, the “Catholic Encyclopedia” states the following regarding the canon of Scripture:

II. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.

A. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON (INCLUDING THE DEUTEROS) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei.

Now, gomez, what was it you were saying?
BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

hlgomez -

Now, gomez, you were saying?

[chuckle] - ok.

He was saying that the canon affirmed by the Council of Trent included those books of the Alexandrian Canon deemed canonical by the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

Boule, I can’t believe you are not fully conversant with the history of the canon. Or can I? I never learned any of this in seminary either!

 

[hlgomez]

Now, gomez, what was it you were saying?
BouleTheou

How did you determine the canon of scripture that you use now and why did you believe it is so? For those books that were reaffirmed in the Council of Trent was part of the canon of Scripture in the earliest centuries. It was the Protestants lead by Martin Luther who rejected some books of the Bible simply because they didn’t fit his twisted doctrines. Protestants today may say that some of those books rejected by the Luther/Calvin were not part of the Jewish canon. But I would just like to repeat what St. Augustine has said: “Is it the Jews who will say it to the Christians which book belongs to the Canon of the Bible (particularly the OT) or is it the Christians themselves?”

Boule, remember that Luther even had made thoughts to reject the book of James and Revelation. In particular for James because it says there “Faith without works is dead” as against Luther’s “Faith alone” can save a person. Now, what was it that you were saying?

Pio

 

[JPrejean]

Now, gomez, what was it you were saying?

Evidently, you honestly don’t know, because what you posted was completely irrelevant to his point. Check out the assertions to which he was responding; they have absolutely nothing to do with the canon being infallible. He is disputing your assertions about the historical acceptance of the deuterocanonical books and about the implication that the later acceptance of the deuterocanonical books implies that they were added rather than recognized as Scripture in the same manner as all of the other books.

 

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

ChrisW -

1. What “Catholic translation” are you talking about?

I am talking about the documents that resulted from the Council of Carthage in about 400 AD, which, from the information I have read, are porported to be the earliest complete manuscripts of the NT in existence today.

BouleTheou:

1. The Protestant scholars and textual critics work with the original Greek that Paul, John, and Peter wrote. We’re not relying on a translation - ??

See my answer above. My understanding is that the original manuscripts were written in Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, and Greek, and that the original complete manuscripts have not existed for hundreds of years for your Protestant scholars to examine. That is why I am asking you specifically what texts the scholars you mention are examining? Where is this collection of original manuscripts? If I am wrong about the originals no longer existing, then please explain it to me.

I don’t know how to be more clear about this, Boule: To the best of my knowledge, the earliest complete manuscripts *in existence * are those documents which resulted from the Council of Carthage in about 400 ad, which are a Catholic translation (because the council was held under the authority of the Catholic Church for the purpose of authoritatively proclaiming the NT canon).

BouleTheou:

1. You ignored 1 Thess 2:13. That answers the how question. Please tell me what you think that passage means, why you ignored it, and why you think it is inadequate to do exactly what the passage says. I agree with the original recipients of the Word of God as to what it is.

BouleTheou

I didn’t respond to this verse because it is pretty straight forward. My fault in assuming that I guess. What does it mean, you ask?

“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

It means the people accepted what the Apostles said (orally, I might add) as the Word of God, which they “heard” from the Apostles. They accepted the teaching of the Apostles as the Word of God, not the word of men, as it actually is. And the Word of God is at work in we who believe.

I cannot see how this is an arguable text, as I did not think you or I are disputing whether or not the teaching of the Apostles is to be considered the Word of God. Nor are we arguing whether or not the Word of God is at work in the lives of those who believe. What’s your point, Boule? Are you suggesting this text somehow proves your case that we all can indvidually determine the canon of scripture and the proper interpretation of scripture? It in no way makes either of those claims.

So, once again (I’m gonna keep asking you until you answer), I ask the following questions:

1. How did you, Boule Theou, for yourself, determine what manuscripts from the thousands that existed in the first few centuries, are to be considered the Word of God (without relying on the canon and the Catholic translation that resulted from the Council of Carthage)?

and

1. How do you account for Christians disagreeing with Boule’s interpretation of the Bible, while at the same time arguing that each individual is fully capable of determining for ourselves, relying only the Bible, what is true and what is not true?

 

[BouleTheou]

Chris W -

1. How did you, Boule Theou, for yourself, determine what manuscripts from the thousands that existed in the first few centuries, are to be considered the Word of God (without relying on the canon and the Catholic translation that resulted from the Council of Carthage)?

[sigh] And I’ll keep answering until you actually deal with my answer…

I did not determine for myself what books are Scripture. I acknowledge the same books that were received by God’s people in the past as Scripture. Just as this was done apart from the existence of or pronouncements of or determinations of some infallible institution in the Old Testament, the same was done in the New Testament.

and

1. How do you account for Christians disagreeing with Boule’s interpretation of the Bible, while at the same time arguing that each individual is fully capable of determining for ourselves, relying only the Bible, what is true and what is not true?

The same way you account for Catholics disagreeing over the proper interpretation of Vatican 2. People have their own sins and precommittments which color their reading of the texts. Read this debate and then tell me that the Magisterium clarifies things:

cathinsight.com/apologetics/debates/sippo/index.htm

Where’s the agreement there? How do you account for Catholics disagreeing with you about the interpretation of Vatican 2’s pronouncements?

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

All Catholics here -

Your own encyclopedia states that the first ecumenical council to give an infallible, binding was Trent. That decree was promulgated April of 1546. Now, I hear constantly from Catholics when I cite stuff from the early church that contradicts various elements of Catholic teaching, “That’s not official,” “That’s not binding,” “That’s only optional,” “That’s his opinion as a private theologian,” etc. Since Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were all provincial and not ecumenical councils, are all of you stating then that no Christian person knew with certainty what the canon of either testament was until 1546?

You all keep asking me, “how did you determine what books are Scripture…” As if anyone needed a pronouncement from a council to tell them. So, I’ll just turn the question to you - how do you know what books are in Scripture? Or better yet, how did a person in the year 200 know what books were Scripture? Or the year 1000?

BouleTheou