Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

[hays1122]

The Rosary is a private devotion and Catholics are free to never pray a Rosary and still be a good, devout Catholic. The Rosary itself is not part of Catholic dogma, though the Mysteries certainly are!

If you’re looking for a good resource on the history of the Rosary, you can’t do better than Rosary: Mysteries, Meditations, and the Telling of the Beads by Kevin Orlin Johnson.

I had no idea that the Rosary was not part of the Catholic dogma.
I read about 10 different stories about visions or apparitions.This is only one of them:
The Virgin of Revelation-1947- Bruno Cornacchiola saw the virgin Mary.At that point, the Virgin of the Revelation taught him the sure means of salvation, for him and for and all mankind, which is prayer, and in particular the daily recitation of the Holy Rosary. “Pray much and recite the Rosary for the conversion of sinners, of unbelievers and of all Christians.” As a reward to those souls who would listen to her message of prayer for the salvation of mankind, the Virgin promised great favors from Heaven. “In this place of sin I shall perform wonderful miracles for the conversion of unbelievers.”
You mean to tell me that this vision of Mary revealing this message to this man was not taken seriously?
The reason I believed it was true is because I hear the Rosary recited twice a day on EWTN. And the prayers I hear are the prayers that were spoken by Mary.
I’ll keep reading and studying.
Thank you for your help.

 

[hosemonkey]

I have the scripture. You have the scripture. So a Catholic wants to convince me that there are traditions or teachings not recorded in the Bible. This is a true story. 4 years ago now. Brand new believer. So I read the Ante Nicene Fathers. And I find–nothing. All over the place actually on most issues. Did I find the Assumption? Nope.

Did I find the Immaculate Conception? Certainly not. The link actually covers some of that as well and I could link other sites that talk about the ECF as well.
I have been warned on that before and since the OP put that puppy in there I felt free to relink it. No sanctions hopefully.
Venerating images? No. Justyn Martyr especially against that of any kind. And on and on.
Etc etc. I have read the stuff. Suit yourself though.

Hate to just jump in here and rain on your parade, but your signature and your admission that you are “a new believer” says much about your lack of understanding of the truth that the Holy Catholic Church teaches. Perhaps when you have a couple of thousand years of experience under your belt, then you will understand better. Until that time, you’d best listen to your elders and not to some upstart protestant nonsense. Cheers.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hate to just jump in here and rain on your parade, but your signature and your admission that you are “a new believer” says much about your lack of understanding of the truth that the Holy Catholic Church teaches. Perhaps when you have a couple of thousand years of experience under your belt, then you will understand better. Until that time, you’d best listen to your elders and not to some upstart protestant nonsense. Cheers.

I think that is what they told Jan Hus as well…

 

[guanophore]

I think that is what they told Jan Hus as well…

No, Jon Hus had other errors, some of which you may still partake of, but not the same as you have represented here on this thread:

The Errors of John Hus
as proclaimed by THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE 1414-1418
[Condemned in Council and by the Bulls “Inter Cunctas” and “In eminentis” Feb. 22, 1418.]

1. One and only is the holy universal Church which is the aggregate of the predestined.
2. Paul never was a member of the devil, although he did certain acts similar to the acts of those who malign the Church.
3. The foreknown are not parts of the Church, since no part of it finally will fall away from it, because the charity of predestination which binds it will not fall away.
4. Two natures, divinity and humanity, are one Christ.
5. The foreknown, although at one time he is in grace according to the present justice, yet is never a part of the holy Church; and the predestined always remains a member of the Church, although at times he may fall away from additional grace, but not from the grace of predestination.
6. Assuming the Church as the convocation of the predestinated, whether they were in grace or not according to the present justice, in that way the Church is an article of faith.
7. Peter is not nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church.
8. Priests living criminally in any manner whatsoever, defile the power of the priesthood, and as unfaithful sons they think unfaithfully regarding the seven sacraments of the Church, the keys, the duties, the censures, customs, ceremonies, and sacred affairs of the Church, its veneration of relics, indulgences, and orders.
9. The papal dignity has sprung up from Caesar, and the perfection and institution of the pope have emanated from the power of Caesar.
10. No one without revelation would have asserted reasonably regarding himself or anyone else that he was the head of a particular church, nor is the Roman Pontiff the head of a particular Roman Church.
11. It is not necessary to believe that the one whosoever is the Roman Pontiff, is the head of any particular holy church, unless God has predestined him.
12. No one takes the place of Christ or of Peter unless he follows him in character, since no other succession is more important, and not otherwise does he receive from God the procuratorial power, because for that office of vicar are required both conformity in character and the authority of Him who institutes it.
13. The pope is not the true and manifest successor of Peter, the first of the apostles, if he lives in a manner contrary to Peter; and if he be avaricious, then he is the vicar of Judas Iscariot. And with like evidence the cardinals are not the true and manifest successors of the college of the other apostles of Christ, unless they live in the manner of the apostles, keeping the commandments and counsels of our Lord Jesus Christ.
14. Doctors holding that anyone to be emended by ecclesiastical censure, if he is unwilling to be corrected, must be handed over to secular judgment, certainly are following in this the priests, scribes, and pharisees, who saying that “it is not permissible for us to kill anyone” (John 18:31), handed over to secular judgment Christ Himself, who did not wish to be obedient to them in all things, and such are homicides worse than Pilate.
15. Ecclesiastical obedience is obedience according to the invention of the priest of the Church, without the expressed authority of scripture.
16. The immediate division of human works is: that they are either virtuous or vicious, because, if a man is vicious and does anything, then he acts viciously; and if he is virtuous and does anything, then he acts virtuously; because as vice, which is called a crime or mortal sin, renders the acts of man universally vicious, so virtue vivifies all the acts of the virtuous man.
17. Priests of Christ, living according to His law and having a knowledge of Scripture and a desire to instruct the people, ought to preach without the impediment of a pretended excommunication. But if the pope or some other prelate orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subject is not obliged to obey.
18. Anyone who approaches the priesthood receives the duty of a preacher by command, and that command he must execute, without the impediment of a pretended excommunication.
19. By ecclesiastical censures of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, the clergy for its own exaltation supplies for itself the lay populace, it multiplies avarice, protects wickedness, and prepares the way for the Antichrist. Moreover, the sign is evident that from the Antichrist such censures proceed, which in their processes they call fulminations, by which the clergy principally proceed against those who uncover the wickedness of the Antichrist, who will make use of the clergy especially for himself.
20. If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.
    (continued)

 

[guanophore]

1. The grace of predestination is a chain by which the body of the Church and any member of it are joined insolubly to Christ the Head.
2. The pope or prelate, wicked and foreknown, is equivocally pastor and truly a thief and robber.
3. The pope should not be called “most holy” even according to his office, because otherwise the king ought also to be called “most holy” according to his office, and torturers and heralds should be called holy, indeed even the devil ought to be called holy, since he is an official of God.
4. If the pope lives in a manner contrary to Christ, even if he should ascend through legal and legitimate election according to the common human constitution, yet he would ascend from another place than through Christ, even though it be granted that he entered by an election made principally by God; for Judas Iscariot rightly and legitimately was elected by God, Jesus Christ, to the episcopacy, and yet he ascended from another place to the sheepfold of the sheep.
5. The condemnation of the forty-five articles of John Wycliffe made by the doctors is irrational and wicked and badly made; the cause alleged by them has been feigned, namely, for the reason that “no one of them is a Catholic but anyone of them is either heretical, erroneous, or scandalous.”
6. Not for this reason, that the electors, or a greater par of them, agreed by acclamation according to the observance of men upon some person, is that person legitimately elected; nor for this reason is he the true and manifest successor or vicar of the Apostle Peter, or in the ecclesiastical office of another apostle. Therefore, whether electors have chosen well or badly, we ought to believe in the works of the one elected; for, by the very reason that anyone who operates for the advancement of the Church in a manner more fully meritorious, has from God more fully the faculty for this.
7. For there is not a spark of evidence that there should be one head ruling the Church in spiritual affairs, which head always lives and is preserved with the Church militant herself.
8. Christ through His true disciples scattered through the world would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads.
9. The apostles and faithful priests of the Lord strenuously in necessities ruled the Church unto salvation, before the office of the pope was introduced; thus they would be doing even to the day of judgment, were the pope utterly lacking.
10. No one is a civil master, no one is a prelate, no one is a bishop while he is in mortal sin.

---

Source: The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy J. Deferrari, from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, copyright 1957 by B. Herder Book Co., published by Marian House, Powers Lake N.D. 58773, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 57-5963, pages 212-215.​

His death was tragic, but unfortunately, a common outcome for heretics of that day. It was considered sedition and treason, since the Church was so much a part of secular rulership.

That is one of the reasons, today, why clergy are not permitted to serve in public office. Killing heretics does not solve the problem of heresy.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I mention these men not in defense of any form of linear “Landmarkism”. Instead I am addressing the curious and inaccurate statment that no one believed in Sola Scriptura for 1500 years.
It is simply inaccurate to say it did not exist for 1500 years. Most importantly though is what happened to people who did believe in this. It was not for lack of trying to form a movement. It was primarily because they were hunted and killed by your church.

 

[cfrancis]

I said:

First, you’d need to define “quote authoritatively” which is an endeavor in subjectivity. That aside, let’s assume we can agree on a definition.
Jude’s use of Enoch is, no doubt, authoritative - stated as fact.
Then there is the issue of OT books not “quoted authoritatively” in the NT, which is a larger number than those simply not quoted/cited/referred to at all.
Sadly, I have run into non-Catholics who ignore these issues.

But let’s assume you are correct: “authoritative quotation” of an OT book in the NT is a stamp of canonicity.

Such does not settle the issue as to how to determine, from the myriad candidates, which books are Scripture and therefore canon. Without the authors there to vouch…

You said:

Once again. You do admit that there was scripture and it was called such prior to these councils? 2nd Timothy 3:16

I’ve repeatedly stated, for example, once Peter put quill to parchment, it was Scripture. But Scripture doesn’t self-identify (save John’s Revelation). The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t delcare itself Scripture; it is, for sure, but the issue you seem to be either not seeing or ignoring is, 350+ years later, when the all candidates vying for inclusion in the canon are lined up against one another, and there is, but for rare instances,no self-identification as Scripture, how is the decision made to include a writing in the canon?

2 Tim 3:16:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

No argument from me, or the Catholic Church. Yet the elephant int he room is Paul doesn’t tell us what writings are inspired by God. Does he indentify his 2d letter to Timothy as being inspired by God?

Further, Peter equates ***all ***Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Pt 3:15-16:
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Following your use of 2 Tim 3:16, Peter’s statement means we are missing at least 2 writings from the canon of Scripture:
Col 4:16
When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

1 Cor 5:9
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

This is where the authority comes into play.

You continue to point to the OT period, and rightly so. There is, then, the burden on you to point out which writings the Jews in 2000 BC, 1020BC, 200BC considered canonical.

 

[cfrancis]

You:

Alexandrian canon containing the Deuterocanonicals??
Oh my. I have swamp land for you. Do tell. What did the most well known Alexandrian Jew not quote them?

Me:

Why didn’t Christ quote all the OT?

Because quotation is not canonicity.

Then what does your first quote mean, if not an implication that because Christ didn’t quote something, it’s not canonical???

 

[guanophore]

I mention these men not in defense of any form of linear “Landmarkism”. Instead I am addressing the curious and inaccurate statment that no one believed in Sola Scriptura for 1500 years.
It is simply inaccurate to say it did not exist for 1500 years. Most importantly though is what happened to people who did believe in this. It was not for lack of trying to form a movement. It was primarily because they were hunted and killed by your church.

It is true that, had there been anyone who believed in SS, they would have been considered a heretic. During the middle ages, in Europe, since there was a joining of the Church with the secular leadership, heretics were considered seditious and traitors, and were persecuted and executed or banished by the secular authorities, who believed they were acting in the wishes of the Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It is true that, had there been anyone who believed in SS, they would have been considered a heretic. During the middle ages, in Europe, since there was a joining of the Church with the secular leadership, heretics were considered seditious and traitors, and were persecuted and executed or banished by the secular authorities, who believed they were acting in the wishes of the Church.

You strike me as a person with a balanced view of history and of course everything you just wrote is accurate.
I have traced it back to 1200 AD. I can go further. That is simply the poing I am trying to make. When people say NO ONE believed Sola Scriptura for 1500 years, that is inaccurate.
Thanks

 

[Rightlydivide]

I said:

You said:

I’ve repeatedly stated, for example, once Peter put quill to parchment, it was Scripture. But Scripture doesn’t self-identify (save John’s Revelation). The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t delcare itself Scripture; it is, for sure, but the issue you seem to be either not seeing or ignoring is, 350+ years later, when the all candidates vying for inclusion in the canon are lined up against one another, and there is, but for rare instances,no self-identification as Scripture, how is the decision made to include a writing in the canon?

2 Tim 3:16:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

No argument from me, or the Catholic Church. Yet the elephant int he room is Paul doesn’t tell us what writings are inspired by God. Does he indentify his 2d letter to Timothy as being inspired by God?

Further, Peter equates ***all ***Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Pt 3:15-16:
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Following your use of 2 Tim 3:16, Peter’s statement means we are missing at least 2 writings from the canon of Scripture:
Col 4:16
When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

1 Cor 5:9
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

This is where the authority comes into play.

You continue to point to the OT period, and rightly so. There is, then, the burden on you to point out which writings the Jews in 2000 BC, 1020BC, 200BC considered canonical.

I do not assume the letter to the church at Laodicea is a seperate letter that is not contained in scripture. In other words, your view holds that scripture calls something scripture that was not. That is a difficult view to defend. Instead, fundamentalists would hold the aforementioned letter is contained in scripture and we have differing views on what that might be.
What we do not think is that scripture has error. I understand that a person with your view would have to hold that it does.
This would go back to biblical innerrancy, which we hold, and I see you do not. That is fine; you are not alone in that sinking ship but we have to understand where we are coming from.

They did know what writings were considered scripture. Because scripture is my authority, I would have no reason to believe that Paul was unclear.
I understand also you want to equate the truth of the Bible to your churches authority, when scripture never indicates that.
Fundamentalists do not have a problem with this. It drives those who do not believe in the innerrancy of scripture nuts.
People did not make the decision. In fact, I would contend you are not defending your churches official view. They hold that the church subsequently approved it. A clear distinction.

 

[guanophore]

You strike me as a person with a balanced view of history and of course everything you just wrote is accurate.
I have traced it back to 1200 AD. I can go further. That is simply the poing I am trying to make. When people say NO ONE believed Sola Scriptura for 1500 years, that is inaccurate.
Thanks

You are right. It would be more accurate to say that no one who had received, believed, and practiced the faith of Jesus, taught by the Apostles, believed this.

Three years in a Protestant Seminary helped to “balance” my views in these matters.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are right. It would be more accurate to say that no one who had received, believed, and practiced the faith of Jesus, taught by the Apostles, believed this.

Three years in a Protestant Seminary helped to “balance” my views in these matters.

I finished mine in 21 months…but my GPA could have been a little better. I rushed it!

 

[cfrancis]

It seems that you’d rather make incorrect assumptions about my beliefs rather than address the issues:

I do not assume the letter to the church at Laodicea is a seperate letter that is not contained in scripture. In other words, your view holds that scripture calls something scripture that was not.

You presented 2 Tim 3:16; I merely pointed out neither the verse nor the letter delineate just what books are included in Paul’s statement. Did Timothy know to which books Paul referred? Of course - but to assume Paul referred to what we consider the OT is speculation not supported by Scripture.
So, as you rest upon 2 Tim 3:16, you are faced with 2 Pt 3:15-16 and its implications for Col 4:16 and 1 Cor 5:9, as Peter is clear he is speaking of all of Paul’s letters.
As Scripture never declares a canon, these verses do not point to errancy or contradiction. Rather, they point to the need for an authority.

That is a difficult view to defend. Instead, fundamentalists would hold the aforementioned letter is contained in scripture and we have differing views on what that might be.
What we do not think is that scripture has error. I understand that a person with your view would have to hold that it does.

You understand my views and beliefs incorrectly; rather, you make the assumption to avoid dealing with the issue. Your assumption that what Paul wrote in his letter to the Laodiceans is contained elsewhere is unwarranted; it certainly wasn’t included in his letter to the Colossians, else he’d not want the letters exchanged.

This would go back to biblical innerrancy, which we hold, and I see you do not. That is fine; you are not alone in that sinking ship but we have to understand where we are coming from.

Again, an incorrect assumption and an attempt to not address the issue raised.

They did know what writings were considered scripture. Because scripture is my authority, I would have no reason to believe that Paul was unclear.

Again, your assumption that Paul referred to the whole OT as we know it is unfounded in Scripture. Based upon using only Scripture as your authority, you are left without a canon of Scripture.

I understand also you want to equate the truth of the Bible to your churches authority, when scripture never indicates that.
Fundamentalists do not have a problem with this. It drives those who do not believe in the innerrancy of scripture nuts.
People did not make the decision. In fact, I would contend you are not defending your churches official view. They hold that the church subsequently approved it. A clear distinction.

No thanks to your misrepresentation of my beliefs, but thank you for making my point! As I’ve repeatedly stated, Scripture was Scripture when quill hit parchment. But save for a tiny fraction of what we know as the canon of Scripture, Scripture does not self-identify or self- approve. What your quote from Vatican I reveals is what I’ve said: Scripture is by its nature Scripture; yet as it does not self-identify, an authority is needed to create the canon.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Bible does not teach that an earthly authority is need to give the world scripture. That is an assumption outside of scripture. The Bible was given to man starting roughly 4000 years ago in piece by piece. It is not scripture because a bunch of fallible men got together in Northern Africa in 400 AD. God gave us his scripture.
You skipped over the graphe argument I posted I see. Why? Because it is obvious. Jesus called scripture scripture a long time before any Roman Catholic council. That is in the Bible. The people KNEW it was scripture; unless Jesus is a liar? No of course not. They knew. Everyone knew unless once again the Bible is in error. Face it. The Bible speaks with authority about writings that are called scripture a long time before you guys were on the scene. Its in the book. Paul knew it. Timothy knew it. You rely on piecemeal historical accounts from so called scholars who deny the historicity of Christ. The Jews had a canon. The scant evidence you rely on is fallible and contradictory. I suspect you know they do not agree on squat.
For example, it has been stated there was an Alexandarian canon that had the Deuterocanonical books. Why do you think that is the case? Did Philo quote from them? No, of course not.
Are there existing copies? No of course not.
You have built your foundantion on the word of fallible men.

 

[cfrancis]

It appears I’ve struck too close to home for you.

The Bible does not teach that an earthly authority is need to give the world scripture. That is an assumption outside of scripture. The Bible was given to man starting roughly 4000 years ago in piece by piece.

Now, here is a statement outside of Scirpture - unless you can produce the Scripture verses to support your statement.
BUt then, we’re back to the crux of the argument, which you consistently ignore: as almost all the writings we call Scripture do not self-identify as Scripture, we need someone, some thing outside of what we call the canon to tell us the canon.

It is not scripture because a bunch of fallible men got together in Northern Africa in 400 AD. God gave us his scripture.

As I’ve acknowledged all along, God did give us Scripture and it was Scripture when quill met parchment; what God did not give us - and I’ve yet to see any Scripture verses that provide - was a list of that which is Scripture.

You skipped over the graphe argument I posted I see. Why? Because it is obvious.

Uh, I “skipped” it as I didn’t read it, as I’ve been attempting to focus on our part of this discussion. Please point the way and I shall read it.

Jesus called scripture scripture a long time before any Roman Catholic council. That is in the Bible.

And just where is Christ’s listing of the books of the Bible?

The people KNEW it was scripture; unless Jesus is a liar? No of course not. They knew. Everyone knew unless once again the Bible is in error. Face it. The Bible speaks with authority about writings that are called scripture a long time before you guys were on the scene. Its in the book. Paul knew it. Timothy knew it.

Well, as sincere as your opinion is, and as passionately as you state it, you’ve yet to provide the Scriptural evidence to support it.

You rely on piecemeal historical accounts from so called scholars who deny the historicity of Christ.

Ah, when one cannot support one’s argument, resort to misrepresentation of the other side’s views and sources.

The Jews had a canon. The scant evidence you rely on is fallible and contradictory. I suspect you know they do not agree on squat.

As I stated, the burden rests upon you to produce what the Jews held as canon at 2000 BC, 1020 BC, 200 BC, 100AD, 400 AD.

For example, it has been stated there was an Alexandarian canon that had the Deuterocanonical books. Why do you think that is the case? Did Philo quote from them? No, of course not.

Shall I present your own statement regarding quotation and canonicity?

Are there existing copies? No of course not.
You have built your foundantion on the word of fallible men.

“Are there existing copies?” That’s your defense? By all means, please produce the existing copies of the original writings of Scripture!
You could have easily addressed the issues I raised, rather than resorting to misrepresenting my beliefs and presenting an emotional tirade.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Tirade? You need to hear my friends!
You think that an authority a group of fallible men are responsible. Now because of scripture you hold certain views about what this group would hold. The old “spiral” effect…Lets take Carthage. We know that the same regional synod 20 years later does what? You know. They tell the Bishop of Rome what about interfering in Northern Africa affairs?
But back to the topic. Man (you) says that God needed an earthly authority to give the world his Bible. The Bible does not say that. Does it? I will believe the Bible. You can believe…you.

 

[cfrancis]

Tirade? You need to hear my friends!
You think that an authority a group of fallible men are responsible. Now because of scripture you hold certain views about what this group would hold. The old “spiral” effect…Lets take Carthage. We know that the same regional synod 20 years later does what? You know. They tell the Bishop of Rome what about interfering in Northern Africa affairs?
But back to the topic. Man (you) says that God needed an earthly authority to give the world his Bible. The Bible does not say that. Does it? I will believe the Bible. You can believe…you.

Neither your truncated knowledge of history, nor your persistent refusal to provide the Scriptures to support your contention that Scripture provides us with the canon, are convincing. I choose to believe God, His Word and His Church.

 

[crazycow]

I cam back from non-denominational 7 1/2 ago.Jesus founded only one church Matt 16:18.PLease talk and ask me any question .I hope that we can talk soon.God Bless!

www.confrontingcatholicism.com
It is the part about the Assumption of our Blessed Mother–how no one talked about it for like 300 years. Does not seem possible it could have happened and people not talk about it all the time.
This is something we have to believe though–right??
I am also not so sure about the venerating of images. It seems like early Christians were really opposed to it.
I do not want to leave the Church–I am not going to–but as I become more than a “cafeteria Catholic”–I really want to believe

 

[crazycow]

Where in the bible says that the bible alone is the rule of faith?
That is the first question that you need to answer.

Bible does not teach that an earthly authority is need to give the world scripture. That is an assumption outside of scripture. The Bible was given to man starting roughly 4000 years ago in piece by piece. It is not scripture because a bunch of fallible men got together in Northern Africa in 400 AD. God gave us his scripture.
You skipped over the graphe argument I posted I see. Why? Because it is obvious. Jesus called scripture scripture a long time before any Roman Catholic council. That is in the Bible. The people KNEW it was scripture; unless Jesus is a liar? No of course not. They knew. Everyone knew unless once again the Bible is in error. Face it. The Bible speaks with authority about writings that are called scripture a long time before you guys were on the scene. Its in the book. Paul knew it. Timothy knew it. You rely on piecemeal historical accounts from so called scholars who deny the historicity of Christ. The Jews had a canon. The scant evidence you rely on is fallible and contradictory. I suspect you know they do not agree on squat.
For example, it has been stated there was an Alexandarian canon that had the Deuterocanonical books. Why do you think that is the case? Did Philo quote from them? No, of course not.
Are there existing copies? No of course not.
You have built your foundantion on the word of fallible men.