Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[PerryJ]

Here is a short list of Church fathers that supported the DCs prior to Jerome’s thoughts. I can provide many more. Notice at the bottom a Pope in the 4th century stating the DCs are scripture.

St. Clement who was baptized by Peters uses the DC as sources three times in the year 80. St. Polycarp’s (69 – 155) only surviving letter cites the book of Tobit. The Didache refers to the DCs twice. The date of the Didache is often stated around 140. Many sources though believe it was much earlier than this and actually written before books of the Bible. Justin Martyr states in the “Dialogue” that he intentionally doesn’t use the DCs against pagan and Jewish to prove his points. This is just after the Bar Cochba revolt. He doesn’t use them because he trying to convert these people. It is not that he didn’t believe in them. (100-163) Irenaus of Lyons accepted the DCs as Canoncial (115 - 190) Tertullian (155 – 250) that even left the Catholic Church accepted the DCs. Hippolytus (170-235) accepted the DC in his commentary on the book of Daniel. Clement of Alexandria (150-216). Origen of Alexandria (185-232) firmly accepted the DCs in History of Susanna. Individuals that believe his list does not include the DCs take some of his statements out of context. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (190-260) accepted the DCs. The local council of Antioch refered to Sirach in 269. Methodius embraced the DCs (311). Lactantius never provides a list but use the book of Sirach. (250-326)

Damasus I, Pope (366-384) provides a list of Books of Scripture that contained the DCs. Here is a Pope in the fourth century including the DCs as inspired. It is nonsense to pretend that the Faith didn’t state the books were in the OT until Trent. They did at Trent to renounce the Reformers heresy.

I could produce many more Early Church Fathers supporting the DCs. I could also provide quotes and sources if anyone wishes to see them.

To believe the DCs were not part of scripture for the early Church is to ignore history.

 

[justasking4]

Here is a short list of Church fathers that supported the DCs prior to Jerome’s thoughts. I can provide many more. Notice at the bottom a Pope in the 4th century stating the DCs are scripture.

St. Clement who was baptized by Peters uses the DC as sources three times in the year 80. St. Polycarp’s (69 – 155) only surviving letter cites the book of Tobit. The Didache refers to the DCs twice. The date of the Didache is often stated around 140. Many sources though believe it was much earlier than this and actually written before books of the Bible. Justin Martyr states in the “Dialogue” that he intentionally doesn’t use the DCs against pagan and Jewish to prove his points. This is just after the Bar Cochba revolt. He doesn’t use them because he trying to convert these people. It is not that he didn’t believe in them. (100-163) Irenaus of Lyons accepted the DCs as Canoncial (115 - 190) Tertullian (155 – 250) that even left the Catholic Church accepted the DCs. Hippolytus (170-235) accepted the DC in his commentary on the book of Daniel. Clement of Alexandria (150-216). Origen of Alexandria (185-232) firmly accepted the DCs in History of Susanna. Individuals that believe his list does not include the DCs take some of his statements out of context. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (190-260) accepted the DCs. The local council of Antioch refered to Sirach in 269. Methodius embraced the DCs (311). Lactantius never provides a list but use the book of Sirach. (250-326)

Damasus I, Pope (366-384) provides a list of Books of Scripture that contained the DCs. Here is a Pope in the fourth century including the DCs as inspired. It is nonsense to pretend that the Faith didn’t state the books were in the OT until Trent. They did at Trent to renounce the Reformers heresy.

I could produce many more Early Church Fathers supporting the DCs. I could also provide quotes and sources if anyone wishes to see them.

To believe the DCs were not part of scripture for the early Church is to ignore history.

Even if these fathers support the idea these books were Scripture it is still true the church at large did not until Trent. That’s why they are DC’s.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Even if these fathers support the idea these books were Scripture it is still true the church at large did not until Trent. That’s why they are DC’s.

Huh???

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Even if these fathers support the idea these books were Scripture it is still true the church at large did not until Trent. That’s why they are DC’s.

Gabriel of 12
Huh???

The DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. Notice what this catholic article says:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

This puts to rest the idea that the DC’s were consider Scripture before Trent.

 

[PerryJ]

Even if these fathers support the idea these books were Scripture it is still true the church at large did not until Trent. That’s why they are DC’s.

No they are DCs because Luther had to throw them out because they did not support his doctrine. Have you read any of his works? That is the truth. Secular historians agree with this interpretation.

Give me evidence that the Church at large did not believe in the DCs. I can go through the next couple of hundred years and give you more support. Give me some real support for your statement. Don’t just give me your opinion.

Are you going to spend the time to verify my statement? Prove I am wrong about Luther. Are you afraid of what you will find out?

Christ used the DCs and you don’t.

 

[PerryJ]

The DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. Notice what this catholic article says:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

This puts to rest the idea that the DC’s were consider Scripture before Trent.

You publish the same stuff again.

A Pope listed them in the year 380. Jerome’s assertion which these people read was proved wrong. Stop avoiding the meat of the matter. The support you have has been proven wrong and yet you continue to make up excuses.

Your theory concerning the Bible has been proved wrong. Do you still believe the world is flat?

 

[PerryJ]

I have to admit I am always baffled when people ignore people taught by the Apostles. Clement that lived with the Apostles; which, we have three accounts of Peter baptizing him supports the DCs. Is the world so vain that we reject one taught by the apostle Peter himself!

 

[justasking4]

You publish the same stuff again.

A Pope listed them in the year 380. Jerome’s assertion which these people read was proved wrong. Stop avoiding the meat of the matter. The support you have has been proven wrong and yet you continue to make up excuses.

Your theory concerning the Bible has been proved wrong. Do you still believe the world is flat?

What year were the DC’s elevated to full canonical status?

 

[justasking4]

I have to admit I am always baffled when people ignore people taught by the Apostles. Clement that lived with the Apostles; which, we have three accounts of Peter baptizing him supports the DCs. Is the world so vain that we reject one taught by the apostle Peter himself!

Huh? The Dc’s have to do with the OT and not the new.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What year were the DC’s elevated to full canonical status?

382 AD - Synod of Rome declared the canon of Scripture, 46 OT books, 27 NT books
393 AD - Council of Hippo declared the canon, which was the exact same list as Synod of Rome
397 AD - Council of Carthage ratified the canon decision made by those 2 councils, this was then officially ratified by the Pope. Trent reaffirmed and dogmatically declared what had previously been determined 1100 years before, in reaction to Protestants (and their printers) removing books and chapters in Esther and Daniel from their Bibles. The 1611 KJV contained the same books as the Catholic Bible. The “1611” KJV in use today is actually the 1885 KJV.

I’m still not sure why you wouldn’t want to use the same Scriptures that Jesus and His Apostles did.

 

[PerryJ]

Huh? The Dc’s have to do with the OT and not the new.

The Greek OT was used by Christ and the Apostles. This included the DCs. Peter taught and baptized Clement. Clement uses DCs in his works as authoritative. To refute the DCs is to refute someone directly taught by Peter. You are refuting the teachings of someone in the Bible that was a follower of Peter.

 

[PerryJ]

The Trent argument is the silliest of arguments. If you truly believe this is true then Luther added the books prior to the Catholic Church. Do you think we truly followed Luther’s lead and added them after he did? Luther was refuting them and we had to pronounce them again.

Faith and reason.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4208537]The Greek OT was used by Christ and the Apostles. This included the DCs.

From my study of this the earlies copy we have of the Septugiant comes from the 4th century AD. If this is true we don’t know if it did indeed have the DC"s

Peter taught and baptized Clement. Clement uses DCs in his works as authoritative. To refute the DCs is to refute someone directly taught by Peter. You are refuting the teachings of someone in the Bible that was a follower of Peter

.
True. Clement is not an apostle.

 

[PerryJ]

From my study of this the earlies copy we have of the Septugiant comes from the 4th century AD. If this is true we don’t know if it did indeed have the DC"s
.
True. Clement is not an apostle.

So you are stating that you are more inspired than Clement?

You know more than a disciple of Peter?

 

[guanophore]

I have no problem with the apostles or Jesus teaching orally the Word. However the only thing we have from them is found in the written Word of God. There is no such thing today for us a oral teaching by them that is not recorded in the Scriptures.

This is absolutely true for all those who have rejected Apostolic Tradition.

If you claim there is an oral teaching of the apostles not recorded in the Scriptures you are going to need to show that with some clear examples of what that is. Can you do so?

No, I think not in this thread. The only oral tradition that is relevant here is that the Holy Scripture is not to be separated from the authority by whom it was produced, the HS working together with those to whom Jesus gave the teaching duty.

It true that we have no such specific command from Him to write down His teachings. However, the mere fact the church considers the written Scriptrues to be inspired-inerrant Word of God tells us that He certainly did intend His teachings to be written down.

No. The two things have nothing to do with each other. Furthermore, you have never demonstrated how you came to the conclusion that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant, so you cannot validly claim that they are.

Secondly, He does command John in Revelation 1:11 to write down what he is about to see and to pass it on to other churches.

At the time, since the books were not in collected form, it is clear that this command was made only about the apocalypse.

Secondly, Christianity has always had the written Scriptures since the beginning. Since the time of Christ it accepted the writings of the OT. It would make sense for the church to follow this model in its teachings of Christ and the apostles.

Even heretics lay claim to the scripture, and there were many books floating about that claimed to be scripture that were not included in the NT.

Until you find a way to prove that the Bible itself is inspired-inerrant, there is no validity in such a statement.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

The authors of the NT make no effort to confine all of the Truth to it’s pages.

True. However we do accept it as the Word of God.

On what basis?

They should not be used to base doctrines or practices on.

Where is that in your Bible? Right next to the table of contents? You have just given another excellent example of an extrabiblical tradition.

Not so. Jesus Himself knew that the OT was Scripture and He uses it as an authority and a support of His teachings.

This is true, and since He used the Septuagint, this is how we know it is the right collection. Why do you reject it?

Did the Jews in the time of Christ know that Isaiah or Jeremiah was inspired Scripture?

Some of them. The Sadducees only recognized the Torah.

They also had their Scriptures written down. We see this in Luke 4:16-21. Secondly we know from Romans 3:2 they were entrusted with the oracles of God i.e. the Scriptures.

No. Actually, this is one of the best verses to refute SS. Oracles are just that - Oral. Look it up.

Not so. The Jews knew what there OT canon was. They never accepted the DC’s as Scripture.

Especially those that rejected Christ, since His teachings are in them. They crucified HIm, then threw out the books written about HIm.

The Didache dated by most scholars to the late first/early second century. This would place it after the apostles died.

Do you imagine that this somehow means it does not contain Apostolic Teaching?

We can only know what the oral teachings were if they were written down. The only teachings of Christ and His apostles can be found in the NT. They exist nowhere else.

Repeating this will not make it true. It may work for you, to convince yourself, but you will not convince any Catholic who knows anything about history. Perhaps you are trying this for Catholics weak in their faith formation?

According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)."

News flash ja4 - the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible either. This passage tends to leave one with the impression that the canon was not definitively proclaimed in the early centuries, which is not the case.

There are no direct quotes from them in the NT that i’m aware of.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that, if you are unaware of something, it does not exist?

We do know that the DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. See my response above. This is a historical fact beyond dispute.

No, this is not correct. A little more study of history and you will finally learn the truth on this, I hope.

 

[guanophore]

I have no problem with the apostles or Jesus teaching orally the Word. However the only thing we have from them is found in the written Word of God. There is no such thing today for us a oral teaching by them that is not recorded in the Scriptures.

This is absolutely true for everyone who has rejected the Apostolic teachings. Such persons are left with making up their own extrabiblical traditions, such as Sola Scriptura.

Even if these fathers support the idea these books were Scripture it is still true the church at large did not until Trent. That’s why they are DC’s.

No, ja4, on both counts. The fact that they are called Deuterocanonicals has nothing to do wtih Christianity.

The DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. Notice what this catholic article says:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

No, ja4. Jerome does not define the Teaching of the Church. And, although controversy does play a role in defining the teachings of the Church, the controversy itself does not represent Church Teaching either.

This puts to rest the idea that the DC’s were consider Scripture before Trent.

It may for you, if you are interested in ignoring the rest of history and Church teaching.

However, none of this has to do with the topic, which relates to the fact that the tradition of Sola Scriptura is itself, not found in Scripture.

What year were the DC’s elevated to full canonical status?

It was around 30AD, when Jesus began to publicly quote and teach from them, referring to them as Scripture.

Huh? The Dc’s have to do with the OT and not the new.

What we have are the Apostles and their immediate successors using the Septuagint. ARe you trying to avoid the topic?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. Notice what this catholic article says:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

This puts to rest the idea that the DC’s were consider Scripture before Trent.

**Your explanation does not matter when placed up against Historical Truth. Truth does not rest when one is decieved from The Truth.

For one The Catholic church recognized the Septuagint from the beginning, because the New testament has 300 quotations from the Septuagint, including the books the protestants rejected in the 15th century. Jesus and the apostles taught from these books from the new testament period. They were used in the Catholic Mass as approved books by the Church since the first century. Both new and old testament books were canonized by the Catholic church councils long before Trent closed and refused to hear any more arguments against the already canonized books from both Old and New Testaments as we have them today. Here is a record of History.

1. Mileto Bishop of Sardis, C.175 ad
2. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185ad
3. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea 325 ad
4. As soon as the persecutions of Christians and destroying Christian books, in 303 ad, by the Roman Emperor Diocletian died down, the Church began to settle the Canon once and for all.
5. All the Churches great scholars concentrated on the question as never before.
6. by 367 ad. St. Athanasius of Alexandria published for the first time the definitive list including all 27 books that we know today.
7. St. Athanasius is quoted by saying “let no one add to them or take anything away from them”

9.St. Athanasius Canon was accepted widely almost immediately. (Although 3 Corinthians kept showing up for surprisingly a long time.

NEW AND OLD TESTAMENT CANONIZED

1.St. Damasus I in 382 ad adopted the canon in the decretal of Gelasius

1. This act prompted by the Council of Rome to write a decree listing the present OT/NT canon of 73 books

3.The council of Hippo in North Africa in 393 ad confirmed the approved 73 book canon of inspired books.

4.The council of Carthage in 397 ad approved the same canon (VERY IMPORTANT HERE THIS IS THE COUNCIL THAT MANY PROTESTANTS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND EVANGELICALS TAKE AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE NT CANON OF BOOKS.

5.Pope St. InnocentI (401-417) In 405ad approved the 73 books canon and closed the canon of the bible.

1. It is during this time St. Jerome a world renowned triangular scholar on record, new more about Hebrew scripture than anyone else alive. The Jewish hierarchy used to visit him in the desert and consult him about their writings. He alone preserved many of the Jewish prejamnian texts that Judaism had destroyed.

7.Under the urging of Pope St. Damascus set out to make a complete standard Latin translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts as well as against the original Greek.

8.St.Jerome completed in 35 years by 426 its called the VULGATE (common language) its old testament is the most complete and accurate record of the scripture that Christ himself used.

1. Finally in 419ad the second council of Carthage again confirmed the Canon and this time
2. (Pope Boniface Promulgated it officially, The New Testament as we know it today was born.
3. Promulgation is the act of announcing a law publicly, with the effect of obliging its observance from the Date expressed.
4. The Vulgate translation is the official Latin Bible today.
5. After the Vulgate for 1000 years the story of the bible becomes a story of language.

14 The Canon of the Bible officially determined in the 4th century by Catholic councils and Popes.

1. Historically the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged to the bible and to assure us that everything in the bible is inspired of God, and contain divine truth.
2. The bible is a Catholic book, the NT was written, copied and collected by Catholic Christians, and thus it is from the Catholic Church that Protestants have a bible at all.**

PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS NO MENTION OF TRENT ANYWHERE YET WHEN THE OLD AND NEW WERE ALREADY CANONIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. TRENT ONLY CLOSED ANY MORE DISPUTES FOR ALL AGES TO COME.

 

[justasking4]

**Your explanation does not matter when placed up against Historical Truth. Truth does not rest when one is decieved from The Truth.

For one The Catholic church recognized the Septuagint from the beginning, because the New testament has 300 quotations from the Septuagint, including the books the protestants rejected in the 15th century. Jesus and the apostles taught from these books from the new testament period. They were used in the Catholic Mass as approved books by the Church since the first century. Both new and old testament books were canonized by the Catholic church councils long before Trent closed and refused to hear any more arguments against the already canonized books from both Old and New Testaments as we have them today. Here is a record of History.

1. Mileto Bishop of Sardis, C.175 ad
2. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185ad
3. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea 325 ad
4. As soon as the persecutions of Christians and destroying Christian books, in 303 ad, by the Roman Emperor Diocletian died down, the Church began to settle the Canon once and for all.
5. All the Churches great scholars concentrated on the question as never before.
6. by 367 ad. St. Athanasius of Alexandria published for the first time the definitive list including all 27 books that we know today.
7. St. Athanasius is quoted by saying “let no one add to them or take anything away from them”

9.St. Athanasius Canon was accepted widely almost immediately. (Although 3 Corinthians kept showing up for surprisingly a long time.

NEW AND OLD TESTAMENT CANONIZED

1.St. Damasus I in 382 ad adopted the canon in the decretal of Gelasius

1. This act prompted by the Council of Rome to write a decree listing the present OT/NT canon of 73 books

3.The council of Hippo in North Africa in 393 ad confirmed the approved 73 book canon of inspired books.

4.The council of Carthage in 397 ad approved the same canon (VERY IMPORTANT HERE THIS IS THE COUNCIL THAT MANY PROTESTANTS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND EVANGELICALS TAKE AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE NT CANON OF BOOKS.

5.Pope St. InnocentI (401-417) In 405ad approved the 73 books canon and closed the canon of the bible.

1. It is during this time St. Jerome a world renowned triangular scholar on record, new more about Hebrew scripture than anyone else alive. The Jewish hierarchy used to visit him in the desert and consult him about their writings. He alone preserved many of the Jewish prejamnian texts that Judaism had destroyed.

7.Under the urging of Pope St. Damascus set out to make a complete standard Latin translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts as well as against the original Greek.

8.St.Jerome completed in 35 years by 426 its called the VULGATE (common language) its old testament is the most complete and accurate record of the scripture that Christ himself used.

1. Finally in 419ad the second council of Carthage again confirmed the Canon and this time
2. (Pope Boniface Promulgated it officially, The New Testament as we know it today was born.
3. Promulgation is the act of announcing a law publicly, with the effect of obliging its observance from the Date expressed.
4. The Vulgate translation is the official Latin Bible today.
5. After the Vulgate for 1000 years the story of the bible becomes a story of language.

14 The Canon of the Bible officially determined in the 4th century by Catholic councils and Popes.

1. Historically the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged to the bible and to assure us that everything in the bible is inspired of God, and contain divine truth.
2. The bible is a Catholic book, the NT was written, copied and collected by Catholic Christians, and thus it is from the Catholic Church that Protestants have a bible at all.**

PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS NO MENTION OF TRENT ANYWHERE YET WHEN THE OLD AND NEW WERE ALREADY CANONIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. TRENT ONLY CLOSED ANY MORE DISPUTES FOR ALL AGES TO COME.

Here again is from what i quoted from the Catholic ency:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.** This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. **The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

Trent did not just make the final rule on this issue but elevated the DC’s to full canonical status.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here again is from what i quoted from the Catholic ency:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.** This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. **The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

Trent did not just make the final rule on this issue but elevated the DC’s to full canonical status.

What you are forgetting about the council of Trent, is why they counciled for the books in question, because the protestants removed 7 of them prior, and were upsetting many Catholic Bishops for and or against the already canonized books from arguments from St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others like Martin Luther. The outcome was either accept these canonized books from the apostolic Tradition and canons, or be Excommunicated. Trent stated there will be no more discussion about these disputed books from Catholic Bishops for all ages to come.

Trent confirmed again the already canon from the 4th century Catholic church. Now that you know the Truth now read the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia it makes more sense when you have all the truth. You forget just because Catholic Bishops or Catholic saints argued for or against the books throughout the ages never changed the Canon of Scripture from the 4th century.

P.S the Catholic encyclopedia comment confirms that Trent looked at an already Canon of the Catholic church, reread it more carefully.

 

[onenow1]

What you are forgetting about the council of Trent, is why they counciled for the books in question, because the protestants removed 7 of them prior, and were upsetting many Catholic Bishops for and or against the already canonized books from arguments from St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others like Martin Luther. The outcome was either accept these canonized books from the apostolic Tradition and canons, or be Excommunicated. Trent stated there will be no more discussion about these disputed books from Catholic Bishops for all ages to come.

Trent confirmed again the already canon from the 4th century Catholic church. Now that you know the Truth now read the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia it makes more sense when you have all the truth. You forget just because Catholic Bishops or Catholic saints argued for or against the books throughout the ages never changed the Canon of Scripture from the 4th century.

P.S the Catholic encyclopedia comment confirms that Trent looked at an already Canon of the Catholic church, reread it more carefully.

Hi, ja4

Quote= OneNow1 And if that doesn’t convince, this is from WIKI : The first printed bible on movable type.

The Gutenberg Bible
This famous edition of the Vulgate was published in 1455. Like the manuscripts on which it was based, the Gutenberg Bible lacked a specific Apocrypha section;[2] its Old Testament included the books that Jerome considered apocryphal, and those which Clement VIII would later move to the appendix. The Prayer of Manasses was located after the Books of Chronicles, and 3 and 4 Esdras followed 2 Esdras (Nehemiah), and Prayer of Solomon followed Ecclesiasticus.

Peace, OneNow1

PS I would say the Holy Spirit protected His books.