What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[guanophore]

There wasn’t even a “single set of doctrines” amongst the disciples, of which Peter was one! You keep saying “read history;” but when I read the Bible, I don’t see “Catholic” emblazoned anywhere. Not even once.

Yes, 101, there was a single set of doctrines. It may have taken the Apostles some discussion and discernment to arrive at them from time to time, but it the end, it has always been “it has seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us”. Doctrine has been developed, usually in response to heresies.

You do not see Catholic in the Bible because you read it with your anti-Catholic blinders on your face. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic Teaching. It is, in it’s entirety, a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition. IT was written by persons who espoused the Catholic faith, the Church founded by JEsus.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post
Christ calls the church a “body” which is in the collective sense - meaning all the different parts form The One. No one individual or organization is any better than the next. All the demeaning and chastising of those who cannot accept the raucous Roman Catholic claims of supremacy here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are false.

Interesting perspective; let’s flip that coin, shall we! Logically speaking, all the approbation and acclaim of those who can accept the soft, subdued and harmonious Catholic claims of supremacy, {as per the Bible} --here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are true!

So, all of the divided churches in the protestant world are one, united and the same --right, just as the C.C. is? Well, let us see if these insular, multifarious protestant assemblies can pass the litmus test just as the C.C. can!

P101, I can attend any C.C. in the world and bring the teachings/beliefs of the one C.C. to which I attend --with me, and those teachings/beliefs will be perfectly in line with what every other C.C. the world over, teaches and believes!

Can you say: I can attend any P.C.in the world and bring the teachings/beliefs of the one Protestant church to which I attend --with me, and those teachings/beliefs will be perfectly in line with what every other P.C. the world over, teaches and believes?

As I said before to gcnuss: do you think Jesus is happy or sad with all the division and disunity within His Mystical Body? John 17…Why, if we are all members of Christ’s one church, is His church so utterly fractured and divided, outside the C.C.? If Satan is the author of confusion, are we not playing right into his hands when we separate our assemblies, and continue to call all of them the one bride of Christ? If all of these non-Catholic heterogeneous assemblies in the world today are in fact members of Jesus’ one church, avoiding those who create dissensions, urging that there be no divisions, of the same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing, thinking in harmony with one another, praying as Jesus did, that His church may be one, as the Father and the Son are one, united in one spirit, baptized into one body, one Spirit, called to one hope, then why aren’t the protestant assemblies one and united as per sacred scripture, vis-a-vis any one doctrine, just as Jesus’ N.T. church was…just as His bride was for 1500 years, and still is to this day?

Joe370…

 

[Protestant101]

P101, you said:

There wasn’t even a “single set of doctrines” amongst the disciples, of which Peter was one!

You mean there was no Bible? Did your church proceed from Jerusalem on Pentecost?

LOL “My church is better than your church…” That’s all I ever hear from you guys!! Where is it written that a Church has to “proceed from Pentecost” to be the first Church? Now you are going to try to tell us the lie that there were no Christians before Pentecost?

Where in the infallible Holy Bible does the it say: The Bible is sufficient for everything? Again why do you believe the Bible is God’s Word, given to you by a very fallible church, as all churches are?

Where does it say it’s not? To suggest that it is not only confirms the idea that I have put forth on this forum already that “Catholics denigrate the authority of Scripture.”

BTW when I said there was no single set of doctrines amongst the disciples; I meant that they did not believe the same things. Don’t put words into my mouth AGAIN.

 

[Protestant101]

Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post
Christ calls the church a “body” which is in the collective sense - meaning all the different parts form The One. No one individual or organization is any better than the next. All the demeaning and chastising of those who cannot accept the raucous Roman Catholic claims of supremacy here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are false.

Interesting perspective; let’s flip that coin, shall we! Logically speaking, all the approbation and acclaim of those who can accept the soft, subdued and harmonious Catholic claims of supremacy, {as per the Bible} --here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are true!

So, all of the divided churches in the protestant world are one, united and the same --right, just as the C.C. is? Well, let us see if these insular, multifarious protestant assemblies can pass the litmus test just as the C.C. can!

P101, I can attend any C.C. in the world and bring the teachings/beliefs of the one C.C. to which I attend --with me, and those teachings/beliefs will be perfectly in line with what every other C.C. the world over, teaches and believes!

Can you say: I can attend any P.C.in the world and bring the teachings/beliefs of the one Protestant church to which I attend --with me, and those teachings/beliefs will be perfectly in line with what every other P.C. the world over, teaches and believes?

As I said before to gcnuss: do you think Jesus is happy or sad with all the division and disunity within His Mystical Body? John 17…Why, if we are all members of Christ’s one church, is His church so utterly fractured and divided, outside the C.C.? If Satan is the author of confusion, are we not playing right into his hands when we separate our assemblies, and continue to call all of them the one bride of Christ? If all of these non-Catholic heterogeneous assemblies in the world today are in fact members of Jesus’ one church, avoiding those who create dissensions, urging that there be no divisions, of the same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing, thinking in harmony with one another, praying as Jesus did, that His church may be one, as the Father and the Son are one, united in one spirit, baptized into one body, one Spirit, called to one hope, then why aren’t the protestant assemblies one and united as per sacred scripture, vis-a-vis any one doctrine, just as Jesus’ N.T. church was…just as His bride was for 1500 years, and still is to this day?

Joe370…

Actually, if I were to go anywhere in the world to an Adventist Sabbath School Class; they would all be on the same lesson as me, teaching and preaching the same things…guess you will have to revise your theories again eh?

 

[Protestant101]

Yes, 101, there was a single set of doctrines. It may have taken the Apostles some discussion and discernment to arrive at them from time to time, but it the end, it has always been “it has seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us”. Doctrine has been developed, usually in response to heresies.

You do not see Catholic in the Bible because you read it with your anti-Catholic blinders on your face. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic Teaching. It is, in it’s entirety, a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition. IT was written by persons who espoused the Catholic faith, the Church founded by JEsus.

You really like that cliche’ “anti-catholic blinders;” but it holds no truth whatever. It’s simply an excuse for you to do a little Protestant-bashing.

Catholics did not write the Bible. You can’t prove that. There is lots of evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[joe370]

P101, you said:

There wasn’t even a “single set of doctrines” amongst the disciples, of which Peter was one.

**I said:

You mean there was no Bible? Did your church proceed from Jerusalem on Pentecost?**

LOL “My church is better than your church…” That’s all I ever hear from you guys!! Where is it written that a Church has to “proceed from Pentecost” to be the first Church? Now you are going to try to tell us the lie that there were no Christians before Pentecost?

**Please give me the post that said, “My church is better than your church…” **

As per your bible, Jesus built a church when He walked the earth:

“…and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

**P101, I try to steer clear of unnecessary sarcasm such as: “My church is better than your church…” That’s all I ever hear from you guys! **

**When did Jesus build this One church, or did He build more than one church; no sarcasm intended? I just need an answer.
**

**As per sacred scripture, the bride of Christ was established exactly when: **

"they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. Where in the infallible Holy Bible does the it say: The Bible is sufficient for everything? Again why do you believe the Bible is God’s Word, given to you by a very fallible church, as all churches are?

**Am I wrong P101? **

Where does it say it’s not? To suggest that it is not only confirms the idea that I have put forth on this forum already that “Catholics denigrate the authority of Scripture.”

**So, let me get this straight; the C.C. which painstakingly codified/canonized the books of the Bible, out of a bevy of books, over a whopping 300 year period, NOW, denigrates said Bible? P101, instead of answering/refuting everyones questions, you choose to spin such silly yarns; sounds a bit like a defensive mechanism! Show me, just once where a Christian belong to the C.C. denigrates the Holy Bible, and I will leave the C.C. **

Then I said there was no single set of doctrines amongst the disciples; I meant that they did not believe the same things. Don’t put words into my mouth AGAIN.

**Phew, you sure get peeved quite easily; I simply didn’t know what you meant; I apologize!
**

**P101, what did they do when they didn’t believe the same thing, as per scripture? They took it to the church!!! Correct???
**

**According to Acts, they went to the church in Jerusalem to settle the matter: **

*“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” *

Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

**The dispute was between those who had come down from Judea, and Paul, and the “Pillars of the Church,” led by Peter and James. As you said, they didn’t always agree, but they didn’t part ways as protestants did/do; they took it to the Church of Jerusalem, where Jesus’ church was established, to settle the matter. **

At the Council, the following advice was issued by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7–11) and James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, who gave his decision later:

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day” (Acts 15:19–21).

What was the result of taking it to the church? Well, let’s see:

“Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’” And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter. When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation.

This is why the C.C. is still one and united; disputes are settled by the church as per Matthew 18:17, not the Holy Bible via private interpretation!!!

---

Joe370…

 

[joe370]

P101, You said:

The Bible is sufficient…

Again, where does it say that, and again why do you believe the Bible is God’s Word, given to you by a very fallible church, as all churches are?

Where does it say it’s not?

Where does it say purgatory is not real? Interesting rebuttal! So, you are saying, not every word that is infallible is in the bible?

To suggest that it is not only confirms the idea that I have put forth on this forum already that "Catholics denigrate the authority of Scripture."

To suggest that it’s not confirms, the idea that you might embrace tradition!

Could you please answer the following questions, from a former post; it would really shed light…

P101, you basically said: all of the divided churches in the protestant world are one, united and the same --right, just as the C.C. is? Well, let us see if these insular, multifarious protestant assemblies can pass the litmus test just as the C.C. can!

P101, I can attend any C.C. in the world and bring the teachings/beliefs of the one C.C. to which I attend --with me, and those teachings/beliefs will be perfectly in line with what every other C.C. the world over, teaches and believes!

Can you say: I can attend any P.C.in the world and bring the teachings/beliefs of the one Protestant church to which I attend --with me, and those teachings/beliefs will be perfectly in line with what every other P.C. the world over, teaches and believes?

As I said before to gcnuss: do you think Jesus is happy or sad with all the division and disunity within His Mystical Body? John 17…Why, if we are all members of Christ’s one church, is His church so utterly fractured and divided, outside the C.C.? If Satan is the author of confusion, are we not playing right into his hands when we separate our assemblies, and continue to call all of them the one bride of Christ? If all of these non-Catholic heterogeneous assemblies in the world today are in fact members of Jesus’ one church, avoiding those who create dissensions, urging that there be no divisions, of the same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing, thinking in harmony with one another, praying as Jesus did, that His church may be one, as the Father and the Son are one, united in one spirit, baptized into one body, one Spirit, called to one hope, then why aren’t the protestant assemblies one and united as per sacred scripture, vis-a-vis any one doctrine, just as Jesus’ N.T. church was…just as His bride was for 1500 years, and still is to this day?

 

[Protestant101]

P101, you said:

Then I said there was no single set of doctrines amongst the disciples; I meant that they did not believe the same things. Don’t put words into my mouth AGAIN.

**Phew, you sure get peeved quite easily; I simply didn’t know what you meant; I apologize! **

This is why the C.C. is still one and united; disputes are settled by the church as per Matthew 18:17, not the Holy Bible via private interpretation!!!

---

Joe370…No apology needed, although I do appreciate the thought behind it. And why do you say I am “peeved?” Captitol letters on “AGAIN” is all it takes to make you think such a thing from someone you don’t even know?

The Church is supposed to depend upon the Holy Bible at all times; for all of God’s authority is in His Word.

“Christian” is the word which signifies a follower of Christ…someone who is Christ-like. The Bible tells us in Acts 11:26 that this specific name was first used on the followers of Jesus at Antioch. Now, this passage of Acts was written in AD 41, but note that the text itself says “and it came to pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people, and the disciples were called Christians, first in Antioch.” It is obvious that before this was written, the term “Christian” was in use.

It is interesting to note that some say that the disciples began calling themselves by this name, while some say that their enemies began calling them by this name.

Agrippa used the name “Christian” while speaking to Paul, (Acts 26:28), and amazingly, we only find this name in the Bible three times:

a) Acts 11:26 - “called”
b) Acts 26:28 - “me to be a”
c) 1 Pet.4:16 - “suffer as a”

“Christianity” is a word which does not appear in the Bible; but a popular definition of the word is basically “the whole of the religion of Christ.” It is used especially in distinuishing it from other world religions. Throughout history, from Genesis to Revelation, we see that Christians have always existed. Their actual name was not always “Christian,” but the different names used throught history for them, were to reflect their current experiences and relationship with God. We must also note that the name “Catholic” is not in the Bible. Why isn’t your Church’s name in it if they wrote the Bible? Surely, whoever wrote it would have their name in it!!

PS. The church did not create the canon or confer canonicity upon its books. The initiative in the production and collection of the sacred books rested with God. The church could only recognize and receive in faith the documents produced by divine inspiration.

The development of the canon was a gradual process, presided over by the Spirit of God, not a Church. True, regional church councils passed upon the canon of scripture, but the reasons for accepting the present canon lie deeper than the authority of these councils; they are based upon the conviction that the hand of God led in the formation of the canon. “All Scripture is inspired by God…”

The early Christians (not all Catholics) accepted as reliable only those books written by an apostle or a companion of an apostle. To be recognized as canonical a document had to have a wide acceptance among Christians throughout the Mediterranean world. They judged a work on the basis of content, its inner consistency, its harmony with the rest of Scripture, and its general harmony with Christian experience.

Any Christian who desires to convince himself regarding the NT canon can do so by carefully comparing the 27 books accepted by the church with any other early Christian literature of the first 3 centuries. they will without doubt conclude that there is no book in the canon that should be left out, and no book left out that should be included.

 

[SHW]

Infallibility

Hi Joe,

Just one note on your fine post:

The Bible is "inerrant. “Inerrant” means “true,” without error, and refers to “content.”

“Infallibility” refers to the ability to “interpret” Scriptures without “errors.”

So the Bible is inerrant and the Catholic Church is infallible in its interpretation of the Bible’s contents.

Pax,
SHW

 

[guanophore]

The Church is supposed to depend upon the Holy Bible at all times; for all of God’s authority is in His Word.

Where did you cut and paste that from? IT has a different font.

Or better, where did you dig up this extrabiblical doctrine?

How, if the Church had to depend upon the Holy Bible at all times, did they survive for the first 400 years before it existed?

Your own website attests to the fact that the first letters in the NT did not appear for at least 20 years. How did the Church grow?

If Jesus wanted “authority” to be in the Bible, why didn’t he tell this to the Apostles, instead of misleading them to think that He was giving it to them?

“Christian” is the word which signifies a follower of Christ…someone who is Christ-like. The Bible tells us in Acts 11:26 that this specific name was first used on the followers of Jesus at Antioch. Now, this passage of Acts was written in AD 41, but note that the text itself says “and it came to pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people, and the disciples were called Christians, first in Antioch.” It is obvious that before this was written, the term “Christian” was in use.

I agree, just as the word used to describe the Church (Catholic) was already in use before it was written.
Protestant101;5039603:

It is interesting to note that some say that the disciples began calling themselves by this name, while some say that their enemies began calling them by this name.

What is it that you find interesting about that?

Agrippa used the name “Christian” while speaking to Paul, (Acts 26:28), and amazingly, we only find this name in the Bible three times:

And this relates to the thread topic how?

a) Acts 11:26 - “called”
b) Acts 26:28 - “me to be a”
c) 1 Pet.4:16 - “suffer as a”

Somehow I get the impression you are working up to claiming that the first Christians were not Catholic.

“Christianity” is a word which does not appear in the Bible; but a popular definition of the word is basically “the whole of the religion of Christ.” It is used especially in distinuishing it from other world religions. Throughout history, from Genesis to Revelation

, we see that Christians have always existed. [/FONT=Trebuchet MS]

No, 101. This is not the case. The early believers in God did not even know about the Christ. The prophesies were part of the developing revelation of God.

Their actual name was not always “Christian,” but the different names used throught history for them, were to reflect their current experiences and relationship with God.

Are you claiming that SDA’s existed before Christ?

Whether you are or not, what does it have to do with the thread topic?

We must also note that the name "Catholic" is not in the Bible. Why isn't your Church's name in it if they wrote the Bible? Surely, whoever wrote it would have their name in it!!

False, 101. This term is used in scripture. The first Christians knew that the Church was one, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic. They did not need to write this down. Like a number of other truths they considered “obvious”. Later, various heresies and sects arose dissenting against these truths. The Church addressed them by explaining, defining, and developing doctrine.

The books of the NT, all written by Catholics, for Catholics, were written by different people, different places, different decades. None of those writing imagined that all these works would one day be collected and canonized.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say it's not? To suggest that it is not only confirms the idea that I have put forth on this forum already that "Catholics denigrate the authority of Scripture."

Authority must be wielded by persons. As Holy as the Writings are, they cannot take responsibility, which is a requirement of authority. That is why they should not be separated from those persons to whom Jesus gave authority.

It is ridiculous to ascribe qualities to scripture that belong to persons. Besides, the “Sola Scriptura” idea is nowhere found in the Scripture about which it is purported. Why do you suppose that is? Don’t you think God would put this in there, if it were so important?

It is not denigrating to the Scripture to point out that they were never meant to be the sole or final rule of authority for Christians, or that they were formally sufficient for our faith. Scripture is useful, especially in the hands of those appointed for teaching and authority.

BTW when I said there was no single set of doctrines amongst the disciples; I meant that they did not believe the same things. Don’t put words into my mouth AGAIN.

Those that were in unity with the Apostles had unity of belief. When that unity was brought into question, they did whatever was necessary to make unity occur.

What makes you think they did not believe the same things? Do you distinguish between disciples (who may be in error) from the Apostles and the Teaching of the Church, which are infallible?

You really like that cliche’ “anti-catholic blinders;” but it holds no truth whatever. It’s simply an excuse for you to do a little Protestant-bashing.

Not at all, 101! I wore them myself for many years.

I can attest that they exist, and that they do, indeed, influence the perception of what is read.

Catholics did not write the Bible. You can’t prove that. There is lots of evidence to suggest otherwise.

I have no need to “prove” this statement of fact, since there were no other believers at the time except Catholics. I don’t find anything in your posts, either, that shows any evidence to the contrary. I guess you just don’t want to believe that the first four centuries of Christians were Catholic?

Some of the statements in your posts contradict, but it seems that you are at least studying to show yourself approved, and this is a good thing.
jProtestant101:

LOL “My church is better than your church…” That’s all I ever hear from you guys!!

I agree, I have heard this on these threads. This uncharitable attitude notwithstanding, Jesus only founded One Church, and only has One Body. He is the Head of that One Body, the Church.
jProtestant101:

Where is it written that a Church has to “proceed from Pentecost” to be the first Church? Now you are going to try to tell us the lie that there were no Christians before Pentecost?

Questions such as this are based upon a misunderstanding that all revelation of God must be “written”. There are many things that Jesus said and did that were not “written”. They did not, thereby, become invalid!

The only Church founded by Christ is the one into which He breathed the breath of life. This life was made manifest on Pentecost.

Of course there were Christians before Pentecost, Mary being the very first. However, the Church was born out of the blood and water that flowed from His side on the cross, and He breathed the breath of Life into her after His resurrection, and she became manifest to the world on Pentecost. This is the valid Church. All others are imitations, that are drawn from her.
jProtestant101:

**P101, I try to steer clear of unnecessary sarcasm such as: “My church is better than your church…” That’s all I ever hear from you guys! **

**When did Jesus build this One church, or did He build more than one church; no sarcasm intended? I just need an answer.
**

Ok. However, I beg to differe on “all I ever hear”. I myself have filled pages with “other” stuff, never having made this arrogant braggadocio comment.

Jesus founded the Church upon the Apostles and Prophets. Do you not read this in your Bible?

What was it Jesus said about unity in the Gospel of John that led you to believe we should not be One, as He and the Father are One?

**As per sacred scripture, the bride of Christ was established exactly when: **

Before the NT was ever written! And also, the complete Divine Deposit of Faith was delivered to her before a word of it was written as well. God is able to watch over His word.

**According to Acts, they went to the church in Jerusalem to settle the matter: **

*“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” *

Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

“Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’” And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter. When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation.

Protestant101:

Notice that this was resolved, as are all controversies, “with one accord”. This is the unity that Jesus promised to His Church.

 

[guanophore]

The church did not create the canon or confer canonicity upon its books. The initiative in the production and collection of the sacred books rested with God. The church could only recognize and receive in faith the documents produced by divine inspiration.

Of course it was initiated by God! God used Catholics to write, collect, preserve, protect, canonize and promulgate the Bible. Indeed, the Church did need to recognize aht receive in faith the documents produced by divine inspiration. the faith in which they did this is called “Catholic”. One of the criteria for whether or not a book belonged in the Canon was whether everything in it was Catholic.

Why is it so important for you to deny this activity to the Catholic faith? Does acknowledging that the Catholic Church canonized the Scripture give too much “credit” to Catholics?

The development of the canon was a gradual process, presided over by the Spirit of God, not a Church.

You are creating a false dichotomy. the HS is the Soul of the Church. The Church did not do anything apart from the HS. That is why the scripture attests of the function of the council “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us”. The Bible did not drop out of the sky! Of course the development of the canon was a gradual process, never separated from the Church, and the Catholics that wrote, preserved, and protected the scriptures.

True, regional church councils passed upon the canon of scripture, but the reasons for accepting the present canon lie deeper than the authority of these councils; they are based upon the conviction that the hand of God led in the formation of the canon. “All Scripture is inspired by God…”

This is true, of course, but you say it as if the regional councils did not also believe this?

You really have no “reason” to accept the canon. It comes from the Catholic Church, which you reject.

The early Christians (not all Catholics) accepted as reliable only those books written by an apostle or a companion of an apostle.

You are correct, even those who claimed to be Christian, like today, but were heretics, also accepted the Scripture. Just as today, those same scriptures are used to promote heresies, many of them recycled from those early days.

To be recognized as canonical a document had to have a wide acceptance among Christians throughout the Mediterranean world. They judged a work on the basis of content, its inner consistency, its harmony with the rest of Scripture, and its general harmony with Christian experience.

You really have been doing your studies! You left out one important element, though, that being the authority of the Apostolic church. Was it’s content consistent with the doctrine taught and practiced by the Apostles? Was it affirmed by those placed in authority by the Apostles?

Any Christian who desires to convince himself regarding the NT canon can do so by carefully comparing the 27 books accepted by the church with any other early Christian literature of the first 3 centuries. they will without doubt conclude that there is no book in the canon that should be left out, and no book left out that should be included.

Well,I have looked carefully, and I confess that I do not understand some of the choices. I cannot find anything in the Didache, for example, that does not meet the criteria. Fortunately, I do not suffer from the arrogance that Luther and modern bible christians do. I don t consider myself qualfied to change the canon to suit myself. I have alternative arrogances to address.