Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe? (SPLIT)

[PRmerger]

The part that I notice Catholics completely miss is Scripture that is sung that says, “he who comes to Me shall not hunger; he who believes in Me shall not thirst,” which comes directly from John 6:35, which is the key passage that proves that Jesus is speaking figuratively about the bread & wine spiritually “nourishing” us, not that Jesus is speaking about literally eating & drinking His literal flesh & blood, because that would violate Levitical law (Leviticus 17:10-14)

Sure. There’s a figurative aspect to John 6. Just not figurative ONLY.

That’s the problem with so many heresies. They insert “ONLY” where none needs to be.

Jesus is man ONLY. {nope} Jesus* is *man. Just not man ONLY.
Jesus is God ONLY {nope} Jesus is God. Just not God ONLY.
The Eucharist is symbolic ONLY. {nope} The Eucharist is symbolic. Just not symbolic ONLY
We need faith ONLY. {nope} We do need faith. Just not faith ONLY.
We need the Bible ONLY. {nope}. We do need the Bible. Just not the Bible ONLY.
We need science ONLY {nope}. We do need science. Just not science ONLY.

It is only when people are duped (Edited) where they insert an ONLY where none needs to be.

The only ONLY that Catholics profess is that we are saved by Jesus ONLY through His Body, the CC ONLY.

But as for the rest of it…well, we have been able to resist (Edited).

 

[PRmerger]

If simply calling Mary, “mother of Jesus” & “mother of my Lord,” and not “Mother of God” means that I don’t believe that Jesus is God, then that would mean the apostles didn’t believe that either, because none of them called Mary “Mother of God.” ZERO!

Well, if we’re going to use that paradigm, then you’re going to have to say that the Epistle to the Hebrews doesn’t belong in the Bible…because none of the apostles ever wrote in a single page of the Bible, “We believe that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired!” ZERO!

 

[PRmerger]

In fact, the ONLY place in Scripture where “Queen of Heaven” is used is to describe the pagan goddess of prostitution - hardly a title respectful to use for the mother of our Lord Jesus, since it’s never used in Scripture to describe her.

I find it curious that St. Paul says that we, who never even bore the Word Incarnate, can be kings (and queens), but you’re denying Mary this title.

You are already satisfied; you have already grown rich; you have become kings* without us! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we also might become kings with you.–1 Corinthians 4:8

Why is that?

Or is this one of those places where you’re going to discern that this epistle has an error?

 

[PRmerger]

And by making those bogus claims, you just proved that after 170+ posts, you haven’t understood a single word I wrote about “why” I believe in the Authority of Scripture.

This is quite true, taz.

I have no idea how you were able to discern the over 400 ancient Christian manuscripts and decide on your own whether they are inspired or not…

And since you’ve never answered the question that’s been asked, ad nauseum, as to how you know something is theologically correct, when you don’t have the Bible to confer with…

you’re right.

I am left with my head scratching.

Remember, the Bible didn’t float down from heaven on the wings of a dove.

Think about it. How did the Bible get to you and me?

 

[PRmerger]

not that Jesus is speaking about literally eating & drinking His literal flesh & blood, because that would violate Levitical law (Leviticus 17:10-14).

And human sacrifice violates the most foundational of God’s laws…and yet…you put yourself as the beneficiary of the most heinous human sacrifice in the history of creation: deicide.

Incidentally, taz, do you think Jesus believed it’s fine to violate the Levitical laws, but only if it’s done symbolically?

 

[ericc]

Although 1 & 2 Esdras is what the Catholic OT refers to as Ezra & Nehemiah. But the 1 & 2 Esdras that I was referring to that was in the Septuagint that the Catholic church removed is what Catholics refer to as 3 & 4 Esdra (since 1 & 2 Esdra) is in the Catholic OT. It can get confusing, but that’s what I was referring to. BTW, this is completely on topic, because since the OP is about the when the canon of Scripture was established, after I explained when, many Catholics on this thread have accused Protestants of “removing books from their Bible,” when in reality the Catholic church did the same thing. I was merely addressing this issue that what Catholics accused Protestants of doing, they did the exact same thing.

This thread is about where and when was the **protestant **canon of scriptures established. I did not ask you to explain why you remove books from the Catholic canon. I am not the “many catholics” that asked you about this removal. You can answer them. I don’t need that information. In fact, I am even not assuming that you remove any books at all. I am assuming that you have put together a Protestant canon all on your own, fresh from ground zero. So if my assumption is correct, then disclose all pertinent information about the Protestant canon process. I won’t repeat those questions. You know what they are. Please don’t pull in other distraction and just stay on topic. Please. Just answer the questions.

It’s obvious that the OT canon was closed by the time of Jesus, because Jesus Himself referred to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets.” And by doing so, He was acknowledging not only that it was closed, but also the canon’s Inspiration, because He referred to in in Luke 24:44-45 as Scripture, which Paul refers to Scripture as Inspired, or “God-breathed.” However, in Luke 24:44-45, Jesus “extends” the canon by referring to it as “the Law AND the Prophets AND the Psalms,” not just “the Law & the Prophets” which would have included the Psalms. Jesus does this because, unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees acknowledged the EXACT SAME books as being part of their canon as Protestants do, which Jesus doesn’t reject this in Luke 24:44-45, but affirms it. That is why when I brought up the Sadducees not acknowledging the Prophets, it was completely relevant. The problem for Catholics, is that they don’t have an answer for “why” Jesus sub-divides the OT into “the Law, the Prophets, AND the Psalms,” rather than simply “the Law & the Prophets.” Protestants do, because by separating “the Psalms” from “the Prophets,” Jesus was affirming the OT canon of the Pharisees that excluded the 7 Apocrypha books that are in Catholic OT’s, & by doing so, Jesus also rejected the Sadducees’ shorter canon the did not include “the Prophets” nor “the Psalms.” And the reason the Pharisees accepted them, was because Ezra - a writer of OT Inspired Scripture - established the canon during “The Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C. that only involved the Hebrew Scriptures, not the LATER 7 Apocrypha books in Catholic OT’s.

It is NOT obvious. Luke 24:44-45 says this:

…everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.

(a) it refers to a small subset of information regarding Jesus
(b) this subset of information is found in the law of Moses, Prophets and psalms
(c) and this subset of information must be fulfilled.

Nowhere it talks about canon or closure of canon. It is depressing to see you seeing things that are not there. This is not the inkblot test. This is plain black and white.

Where does Ezra talked about the closure of the OT canon. Show it to to me. Book/chapter/verse. A very simple request.

That’s right. The fact that the Septuagint translated both the Hebrew Scriptures “and” the Apocrypha books doesn’t make the Apocrypha Inspired. The fact that the Hebrew Scriptures meet ALL of the godly criteria previously mentioned & that Jesus affirmed them, while the Apocrypha doesn’t & Jesus didn’t affirm them, is what discerns the Hebrew Scriptures as being Inspired & the OT canon, while the Apocrypha isn’t.

You have no authority to discern inspiration or canonicity. You (meaning Protestants) were not there when the Bible was first formed. You have done nothing. So how can talk about canonization when you didn’t go through the process canonization? If you claim you did, then disclose the evidence. I asked for evidence at least twice and sad to say, nothing concrete from you. So you are arguing from silence. So before Protestantism existed, Rabbinic Jews already decide for you your OT portion of your Bible? Is this what you are saying? All these was a done deal before Jamnia? Or was it a done deal in 1000AD when the MT version came into vogue? Or are you sticking to the Ezra date? Choose one. If you choose Ezra then explain Jamnia.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[thetazlord]

It seems all Protestants when asked about why there are so many of their churches differ on teachings, they say because there are essential and non-essential beliefs. You have been asked this question before and have dodged it continuously. If indeed you are are a learned Protestant, you should be able to give at least a basic list of the essential and non-essential beliefs. You go to great lengths disputing all other doctrines of the Catholic church and other subjects, but won’t address this question in the least other than saying “read your Bible, its in there”. Please give us this list, if it exists.

The problem is that her particular question would an extremely long response that space would not allow. My response is based on what I’ve been attempting - numerous times - to explain to her - that if a doctrine or dogma or tradition isn’t in the Bible, then it’s not God-breathed. The essentials are obvious to most Protestants - even between denominations who disagree with each other on non-essentials. The Deity of Christ & the concept of the Trinity are both taught in Scripture. That would an example of “essentials.” How often one celebrates communion - every day, once a week, once a month, etc - are examples of “non-essentials,” because Scripture never states how often communion is to be served. Obviously, I can’t list them all, like the previous posted expects, because - again - it would be TOO LONG. So, I’m not “dodging” anything by saying “read your Bible; they’re in there.” Anyone who has read the Bible, should know the difference.

 

[thetazlord]

(one for each time taz has dodged the question)

I’ve explained this - numerous times - so, no, I haven’t “dodged” the question. Your reply only demonstrates that you haven’t read my posts. So for your convenience - again - Esther contains ZERO errors nor contradictions, as well as confirmed as God-breathed Scripture by Jesus Who affirmed the THREE-fold division of the Hebrew OT (Luke 24:44-45), while Sirach DOES contain errors & contradictions in them. Also, the “additions” are not part of the writing of Esther, but were written MUCH later & “added” onto Esther.

 

[thetazlord]

Aw, come on, brother. Throw me a bone here.

I am curious where the Bible lists these “essentials”.

Could you please give me this list, as well as the Scripture verse that maintains that it is an essential belief?

Here’s your bone. (Edited)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12763113&postcount=185

 

[ericc]

[CONTINUED…PART 2]

Most of this is addressed above. To answer your other questions, when I read the Bible - both the Catholic version & the Protestant version, I noticed that the books in the Catholic OT that weren’t in the Protestant OT contained historical & theological errors & contradictions in them with previous & later Scripture, while the Protestant canon didn’t. And as I’ve said over & over & over again, “I” don’t have the “authority” to determine anything including the canon of Scripture, nor does anyone else, which is why I differ it to the Authority of our Lord, Who - through - Inspired Scripture in His Own Words (Luke 24:44-45) affirmed the canon of OT Scripture that the Pharisees recognized, which was establised prior to them by Ezra during “The Great Synagogue.” The canon of the Bible (forget “Protestant” vs. “Catholic” for the moment) was “finalized” by our Lord, which He revealed - first in Scripture with the OT canon, & second through the Church, which an “unofficial” NT canon was recognized as early as the second century, & most of it by Peter, Paul, & John by the first century. But it’s a mistake to “assume” because He revealed the NT canon to the Church that the Church has anymore “authority” beyond declaring what’s in Scripture, than the Pharisees did who also recognized the same books as Christians do. So, it’s a false assumption that Protestants “adopted” anything from Catholics, but instead explored the Scriptures & were able to discern 2 things: 1) the Hebrew OT Scriptures were affirmed by Jesus as being Inspired Scriptures, because they contained ZERO errors, while the Apocrypha didn’t, and 2) the Greek NT Scriptures contained the same godly attributes that the OT Hebrews have that also qualify them as being Inspired, which Paul, Peter, & John recognized most of them in their own Inspired epistles in the first century.

1. How did you know or determine that the canon of Protestant Bible is inspired?
2. Who gave you the authority to determine the canonicity of your Bible?
3. When was the canon of the Protestant Bible finalised and decided by who?
4. Which Council determined the canon for the Protestant Bible? When was it held? Where was it held?
5. Did the Protestant Bible adopt the NT from the Catholic Bible?
6. Did the Protestant Bible adopt the OT from the Judaism MasoreticText Bible?

So nameless Protestants went though all the NT related books such as :

The Gospel of the Nazareans
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Gospel According to the Hebrews
The Gospel According to the Egyptians
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas
Papyrus Egerton 2: The Unknown Gospel
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Truth
The Gospel of the Savior
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Proto-Gospel of James
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Acts of John
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Thecla
The Acts of Thomas
The Acts of Peter
The Third Letter to the Corinthians
Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans
The Letter of 1 Clement
The Letter of 2 Clement
The “Letter of Peter to James”
The Homilies of Clement
Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora
The Treatise on the Resurrection
The Didache
The Letter of Barnabas
The Preaching of Peter
Pseudo-Titus
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Secret Book of John
On the Origin of the World
The First Thought in Three Forms
The Hymn of the Pearl

and by spiritual guidance chose the exact same number of books as the Catholic and rejected the rest? You are claiming the Protestants independently came up with the NT on their own? Strange, I don’t recall any Protestant doing this exercise. So which Protestant Father did this exercise? Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? When ? Where? Which Protestant council decided that all Protestants should use this version of the Bible?

You mean the Protestant Fathers saw what the Jews were using the MT and decided that it is good for them. How do you know which variant of the OT Scriptures Ezra was using? How do you know the MT was based upon the Ezra version? Because no one have a copy of the Ezra version. Did the Masorettes claim they were using the Ezra variant?

 

[ericc]

It’s obvious that the OT canon was closed by the time of Jesus, because Jesus Himself referred to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets.” And by doing so, He was acknowledging not only that it was closed, but also the canon’s Inspiration, because He referred to in in Luke 24:44-45 as Scripture, which Paul refers to Scripture as Inspired, or “God-breathed.” However, in Luke 24:44-45, Jesus “extends” the canon by referring to it as “the Law AND the Prophets AND the Psalms,” not just “the Law & the Prophets” which would have included the Psalms.

But the full OT canon is NOT the law of Moses + Prophets + Psalms.

It is law of Moses + Prophets + Writings

Psalms is just one of many books that goes into Writings. Since we know that the full OT canon is Moses + Prophets + Writings , based upon this verse, we can conclude the OT canon wasn’t completed yet as at the time of Jesus.

 

[thetazlord]

But the full OT canon is NOT the law of Moses + Prophets + Psalms.

It is law of Moses + Prophets + Writings

Psalms is just one of many books that goes into Writings. Since we know that the full OT canon is Moses + Prophets + Writings , based upon this verse, we can conclude the OT canon wasn’t completed yet as at the time of Jesus.

“Now He [Jesus] said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45)

When Luke writes earlier “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures,” He’s referring to the recognized OT canon in usual two-division of the Torah & the rest of the OT as a whole. But when Jesus then mentions the Psalms separated from “the Prophets,” He is declaring the THREE-fold division which the Psalms is the FIRST book of “the Writings” that Jews refer to as the THIRD division of the TaNaKh (Ketuvim), which is also recognized in Protestant OT’s. No offense, but your explanation still doesn’t explain “why” Jesus recognizes the Psalms as a separate “section” from the Prophets, when elsewhere the Psalms are included with “the Prophets.”

 

[thetazlord]

So nameless Protestants went though all the NT related books such as :

The Gospel of the Nazareans
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Gospel According to the Hebrews
The Gospel According to the Egyptians
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas
Papyrus Egerton 2: The Unknown Gospel
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Truth
The Gospel of the Savior
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Proto-Gospel of James
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Acts of John
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Thecla
The Acts of Thomas
The Acts of Peter
The Third Letter to the Corinthians
Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans
The Letter of 1 Clement
The Letter of 2 Clement
The “Letter of Peter to James”
The Homilies of Clement
Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora
The Treatise on the Resurrection
The Didache
The Letter of Barnabas
The Preaching of Peter
Pseudo-Titus
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Secret Book of John
On the Origin of the World
The First Thought in Three Forms
The Hymn of the Pearl

and by spiritual guidance chose the exact same number of books as the Catholic and rejected the rest? You are claiming the Protestants independently came up with the NT on their own? Strange, I don’t recall any Protestant doing this exercise. So which Protestant Father did this exercise? Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? When ? Where? Which Protestant council decided that all Protestants should use this version of the Bible?

Actually, throughout Church history, both Catholics & Protestants have examined extra-biblical texts & have recognized that NONE of these texts are God-breathed due to their numerous errors, as well as many of them being written too late to be attributed to the alleged authors of these writings…since they were DEAD.

You mean the Protestant Fathers saw what the Jews were using the MT and decided that it is good for them. How do you know which variant of the OT Scriptures Ezra was using? How do you know the MT was based upon the Ezra version? Because no one have a copy of the Ezra version. Did the Masorettes claim they were using the Ezra variant?

Again, Jesus acknowledged it by purposely separating “the Psalms” from “the Prophets.” And that’s because - again - the Psalms were the FIRST book of the THIRD division of the TaNaKh (the Ketuvim) that even CA Jimmy Akin admits the Pharisees themselves recognized as God-breathed Scripture, which is “who” Jesus corrected using their Scriptures - the same ones Protestants use, but not Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s your bone. No offense, but you should have known this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12763113&postcount=185

Awww, thanks, bro.

But as for the Trinity being an essential doctrine, what Bible verse says this? Book, chapter and verse, please!

And please note: I am not asking for apologia for the Trinity. I am asking where the Bible says this is an essential.

And, why can’t you list these essentials? Doesn’t that seem odd that you are making a claim that there’s something, er, ESSENTIAL that we have to believe in order to be saved, and you can’t even compile a list of these essential things?

I think, as you know now that you have backed yourself into this corner of claiming there are Biblical essentials when the Bible states NO SUCH THING, that this is going to go the way as all of our other questions have: no Biblical answer will be forthcoming.

That’s ANOTHER manmade tradition you’ve been duped into believing, taz.

You just heard some man talk, vaguely, about essentials, who heard another man talk about it, who heard another man talk about it…

but no one ever read that there are essential and nonessential doctrines in a single page of the Bible.

That, my friend, comes from Tradition, this list of essentials, which we call the “hierarchy of truths”.

So you are correct in that there are indeed some essentials/nonessentials…but you get this from…

wait for it…

wait for it…



The Church.

NOT from…

the Bible.

 

[ericc]

“Now He [Jesus] said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45)

When Luke writes earlier “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures,” He’s referring to the recognized OT canon in usual two-division of the Torah & the rest of the OT as a whole. But when Jesus then mentions the Psalms separated from “the Prophets,” He is declaring the THREE-fold division which the Psalms is the FIRST book of “the Writings” that Jews refer to as the THIRD division of the TaNaKh (Ketuvim), which is also recognized in Protestant OT’s. No offense, but your explanation still doesn’t explain “why” Jesus recognizes the Psalms as a separate “section” from the Prophets, when elsewhere the Psalms are included with “the Prophets.”

You are deliberating sidestepping the question. Does Moses + Prophets + Psalms make the full OT canon? No it doesn’t. You are just creating tags i.e. divisions to make it fit your category. Well Jesus could have also stated Genesis, the first book of Moses. But he didn’t. He could have stated “Writings” , but he didn’t. He only quoted Psalms. So you are either arguing from silence or extrapolating.

Your claim was closure of the OT canon. I have shown you the verse doesn’t say that. Suddenly you have forgotten how Protestant Sola Scriptura works. If the Bible didn’t say it, it is not to be believed! You are seeing a whole closed OT canon in the verse when there is no such evidence. Each time I draw you to the verse the exact words to illustrate the non-evidence of the closure OT canon, you veered away from that evidence and talk about your divisions. Do you want to look at the evidence before your eyes or you just want to do your side-stepping dance? You are losing lots of credibility here.

 

[ericc]

Actually, throughout Church history, both Catholics & Protestants have examined extra-biblical texts & have recognized that NONE of these texts are God-breathed due to their numerous errors, as well as many of them being written too late to be attributed to the alleged authors of these writings…since they were DEAD.

Again, Jesus acknowledged it by purposely separating “the Psalms” from “the Prophets.” And that’s because - again - the Psalms were the FIRST book of the THIRD division of the TaNaKh (the Ketuvim) that even CA Jimmy Akin admits the Pharisees themselves recognized as God-breathed Scripture, which is “who” Jesus corrected using their Scriptures - the same ones Protestants use, but not Catholics.

Again you are side stepping my question. Which Protestant Fathers did this exercise? When? Without providing names, you are hiding behind a smoke screen. Was it Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? Of course you realize than if no evidence arose that they went though the exercise and you are saying that they did, your whole case is gone.

Don’t you have any facts other than hiding behind your 3-fold Divisions shield again? Yawn… I am not swayed by that 3 fold thing because it itself does not prove anything about closure of the OT in Ezra time. It shows such categories exist but you notice they did not publish the list of books? Besides, what do you do about Jamnia? I read that “at this council, five of the books in the Hebrew canon were questioned, regarding their canon. These included Ezekiel, Proverbs, Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.” Why do they need to decide anything there if your canon was already closed?

And what do you do about the Ethiopian canon?

 

[stewstew03]

I’ve explained this - numerous times - so, no, I haven’t “dodged” the question. Your reply only demonstrates that you haven’t read my posts. So for your convenience - again - Esther contains ZERO errors nor contradictions, as well as confirmed as God-breathed Scripture by Jesus Who affirmed the THREE-fold division of the Hebrew OT (Luke 24:44-45), while Sirach DOES contain errors & contradictions in them. Also, the “additions” are not part of the writing of Esther, but were written MUCH later & “added” onto Esther.

Um, no, actually you haven’t. All you did was provide a link to some bible notes, which didn’t help either. Where are the errors and contradictions in Sirach?

And by the way, how do you know there are errors? A claim that something is in error is not the same thing as the thing actually being in error. You’re not claiming some sort of charism of infallibility when it comes to discerning scripture and which books belong in the canon, are you?

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, throughout Church history, both Catholics & Protestants have examined extra-biblical texts & have recognized that NONE of these texts are God-breathed due to their numerous errors, as well as many of them being written too late to be attributed to the alleged authors of these writings…since they were DEAD.

But you have said that you don’t rely on any fallible men to tell you what to believe.

And you’ve also said that you’ve studied “most” of the ancient texts yourself and discerned on your own that they’re inspired or not…which really strains credulity…but you claim to have done so.

Actually, because of the gift of the Internet, I have been able to study most of them & it’s been rather easy to find the passages in those apocrypha & pseudoepigraphical texts that conflict - and even outright contradict - the OT, the Gospels, as well as the rest of the NT, including 1 Clement. It took some time, but, yes, I “really did this.”

So, just to be clear: you didn’t take the word of other fallible men that these books aren’t inspired. You studied most of these yourself and determined that they weren’t inspired, right? (Which ones, BTW, did you study?)

The Gospel of the Nazareans
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Gospel According to the Hebrews
The Gospel According to the Egyptians
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas
Papyrus Egerton 2: The Unknown Gospel
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Truth
The Gospel of the Savior
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Proto-Gospel of James
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Acts of John
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Thecla
The Acts of Thomas
The Acts of Peter
The Third Letter to the Corinthians
Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans
The Letter of 1 Clement
The Letter of 2 Clement
The “Letter of Peter to James”
The Homilies of Clement
Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora
The Treatise on the Resurrection
The Didache
The Letter of Barnabas
The Preaching of Peter
Pseudo-Titus
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Secret Book of John
On the Origin of the World
The First Thought in Three Forms
The Hymn of the Pearl

 

[PRmerger]

And by the way, how do you know there are errors? A claim that something is in error is not the same thing as the thing actually being in error. You’re not claiming some sort of charism of infallibility when it comes to discerning scripture and which books belong in the canon, are you?

'zactly.

Either taz received the Word of God (imprinted into his heart?) and now has the ability to read the over 400 ancient Christian manuscripts and eliminate the ones which are in conflict with what he received…

OR, he already HAD the Bible (courtesy of the CC) and read all (excuse me, “most”) of the 400 manuscripts and x’d out the ones that were in error.

But that wouldn’t work because he’s saying he doesn’t need the CC to tell him what’s the Word of God.

He already knew it. Somehow…

How? Still to be explained…

 

[PRmerger]

And by making those bogus claims, you just proved that after 170+ posts, you haven’t understood a single word I wrote about “why” I believe in the Authority of Scripture. You think that just because that is the reason YOU believe the Scriptures are Inspired, you false attribute “your” reason for believing in them on Protestants. You couldn’t be more wrong.

And here’s another reason why I still don’t understand (and it appears that I am in good company with so many other posters here asking you the same question) how you came to accept the 27 book canon of the NT:

You posted this in another thread, which is actually more apropos for this OP:

thetazlord:

If Hebrews has contradictions in it, then it shouldn’t be in God-breathed Scripture, because that would be like God contradicting Himself, which is impossible.

That, of course, prompts the question: how do you know Hebrews belongs in the God-breathed Scripture.