Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryNot at all. Nice straw man. It's amazing how much I have to repeat myself with you. I'm merely saying that your tradition is based on man's tradition, not God's word. Perhaps not worthless, but certainly not something you bind all believers' consciences to upon pain of anathema (separated from God). This is exactly how God's church and his true gospel has gotten corrupted. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Your beliefs are based on human tradition and interpretation of Scripture at least as much as mine are. The difference is that I recognize it and I tie my interpretation to a historical record.

---

No, my beliefs have no basis in any tradition that isn't based on Scripture. Maybe you can provide an example of what you're talking about.

And you can't tie your belief (e.g. perpetual virginity) to the historical record of the apostles and the early church. Because you're not tying them to Scripture, but rather to man's extra-Scriptural tradition. A tradition that has no evidence of it until the 4th century or so. That's the whole point, and one that has been clearly demonstrated.

---

Almost everything we've talked about is an example. Your beliefs about all of these things -- baptism, communion, works, faith, etc. -- are based on your interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of whatever church you're a part of.

---

But they're all from Scripture, while the same can't be said for you. It's amazing how often you miss or stray from the point. You're either intellectually lacking or intellectually dishonest.

---

My beliefs on all of those matters are taken from Scripture as interpreted by human beings. Just like yours are.

---

It's been clearly shown in this and multiple other threads that they are not. It's precisely why your church must deny sola scriptura and draw from extra-biblical sources to support your man-made tradition, upon which you place equal authority with Scripture. You're now just trying to gaslight people into thinking that all those times you were silenced because you could not back your church's beliefs with Scripture actually never happened. It's quite amazing.

---

You can't separate hermeneutics from scripture or any text, including these very words. Its ever-present.
Coming to a conclusion about what you're reading has to take place and that conclusion varies greatly by individual. You can't escape this problem.

You've actually already violated allegiance to scripture alone. You claim allegiance to Scripture alone while submitting Scripture to a prior theological grid and discarding books that don't conform to it. By rejecting the deuterocanonical books, Protestants implicitly admit that Scripture alone is insufficient to determine the canon.
You rely on an extra-biblical authority, historical judgment, rabbinic Judaism, or Reformers like Luther to tell you what counts as scripture. Once that move is made, sola Scriptura collapses, because Scripture is no longer the sole infallible rule of faith.

If the Church could be trusted to identify the canon infallibly, then sola Scriptura is false.
If the Church could not be trusted to do so, then Protestants have no infallible Scripture to appeal to in the first place.

---

Hermeneutics has nothing to do with the principle of sola scriptura. Two people can have vastly different interpretations of the same biblical text - but they are both still adhering to sola scriptura if the bible is their only infallible source of authority. The issue here is that Roman Catholic (as well as Orthodox) beliefs are based also on non-scriptural sources, which they consider to be equal in authority to that of Scripture.

You're basically just reiterating the oft used argument against sola scriptura here - "scripture can't be the sole infallible authority, because scripture isn't being used to determine what is scripture to begin with". But note that adherents to sola scriptura don't believe that the process to determine the canon is always infallible, so sola scriptura isn't being violated here - Scripture is still the sole infallible authority. Adherents to sola scriptura fully recognize that church fathers, councils, Jewish rabbis, etc. are all fallible and therefore can indeed err when deciding on the canon. The recognition of the deuterocanon as canon scripture by Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy illustrates this.

This comes to the literal "crux" of the issue of deciding the canon - the cross. Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. It is upon this actual, historical event that the knowledge of the infallible canon is based, NOT on what church fathers, councils, rabbis, or the Reformers told us. Jesus' resurrection from the dead, witnessed by his apostles, proved that he was divine, and that everything he did and said was directly from God. And Jesus himself directly validated the Tanakh (the Law, Prophets, and Writings) as the direct word of God (Luke 24:44) and also declared that his apostles would remember everything he said and did (John 14:26) thereby canonizing their word as God's word. And everything that we have that we know came from the apostles is in Scripture (the New Testament) and nowhere else. Jesus himself validated what is canon Scripture. And Jesus never cited from or validated the books of the deuterocanon, and neither did any of his apostles.

So I guess that in a way, you are right - Scripture isn't the sole infallible rule of faith - Jesus is. His Holy Spirit is. Faith in them is the "prior theological grid" upon which recognizing canon Scripture is based. And the only record we have of what Jesus said and did and what the Holy Spirit inspired, came from the aposlles, whose words are ONLY in Scripture and nowhere else. Hence, sola scriptura.

---

Sola scriptura isn't merely a statement about authority, its a claim about epistemology: how one knows what God has infallibly revealed.

The issue isn't that people can interpret Scripture differently. The issue is how do you interpret which texts are Scripture in the first place? That decision logically precedes any appeal to Scripture as an authority. Therefore hermeneutics isn't optional, its foundational.

If the canon is fallibly known, then you can never know with certainty what counts as infallible Scripture.
That's sola probabilitas.

An infallible authority that cannot be infallibly identified is functionally useless as an infallible rule of faith.

Do you understand that the New Testament OVERWHELMINGLY quotes the Septuagint? The Septuagint includes the Deuterocanon. There was no universally closed Jewish canon in the 1st century. So when saying "Jesus validated the Tanakh" is already a later interpretive decision, not a self evident fact. Your claim that Jesus and the apostles never cited the Deuterocanon is false: The New Testament alludes to Wisdom, Sirach, and Maccabees. Hebrews 11 strongly echoes 2 Maccabes 7.

You claim that everything we have from the apostles is in Scripture and nowhere else...but Scripture contradicts this. John explicitly says not everything was written in John 21:25. Paul command adherence to oral tradition in 2 Thess 2:15. The Church existed, taught, baptized, and worshiped before the New Testament existed. So the claim that "only Scripture contains apostolic teaching is not derived from Scripture, its a theological assertion imposed onto Scripture.

This is the order:
Jesus ---> Apostles--->Church--->Canon--->Scripture
Sola Scriptura collapses into sola Christ +fallible Church mediation, which Protestants then selectively deny authority after receiving the canon from it. That's totally incoherent. The Canon is a Church judgment, period.

What would happen if leadership of a denomination concluded, on historical or theological grounds, that a particular biblical book wasn't genuinely inspired? Lets say Episcopalians concluded that certain books or passages condemning homosexual behavior were not genuinely inspired. If all ecclesial authority is acknowledged to be fallible, and the canon itself is only fallibly known, on what basis could such a decision be definitely rejected? You can't appeal to the rest of the Bible, because the dispute is about which books belong. You can't appeal to tradition or history.

---

The principle is this: once you've decided what is canon, you've then decided all that is infallible. Anything outside of it, since it isn't God's word by your own definition, is subject to fallibility.

---

Exactly...and that includes your decision as to what is canon.

The principle refutes itself.

---

A principle can't refute itself before it even exists.

---

It does exist, though.

Were the Apostles infallible?

---

It exists only after you've recognized and received the canon, not before. You can't have sola scriptura until you have a scriptura. You can't be "deciding" what is canon if you already have it. This isn't hard.

Note that we don't "decide" what is canon. God GIVES the canon, and we recognize and receive it.

The apostles were not infallible. But God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ARE. And Scripture is inspired by them, and given to us through the apostles.

---

So how do we know which writings were given and inspired by God?

---

Jesus told us. Have you not been paying attention?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You assume that all evidence is either divinely inspired or utterly worthless. Convenient, but not realistic. The Church and its councils deal with reality in all its messy details.

---

Not at all. Nice straw man. It's amazing how much I have to repeat myself with you. I'm merely saying that your tradition is based on man's tradition, not God's word. Perhaps not worthless, but certainly not something you bind all believers' consciences to upon pain of anathema (separated from God). This is exactly how God's church and his true gospel has gotten corrupted.

---

Your beliefs are based on human tradition and interpretation of Scripture at least as much as mine are. The difference is that I recognize it and I tie my interpretation to a historical record.

---

No, my beliefs have no basis in any tradition that isn't based on Scripture. Maybe you can provide an example of what you're talking about.

And you can't tie your belief (e.g. perpetual virginity) to the historical record of the apostles and the early church. Because you're not tying them to Scripture, but rather to man's extra-Scriptural tradition. A tradition that has no evidence of it until the 4th century or so. That's the whole point, and one that has been clearly demonstrated.

---

Almost everything we've talked about is an example. Your beliefs about all of these things -- baptism, communion, works, faith, etc. -- are based on your interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of whatever church you're a part of.

---

But they're all from Scripture, while the same can't be said for you. It's amazing how often you miss or stray from the point. You're either intellectually lacking or intellectually dishonest.

---

My beliefs on all of those matters are taken from Scripture as interpreted by human beings. Just like yours are.

---

True

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You assume that all evidence is either divinely inspired or utterly worthless. Convenient, but not realistic. The Church and its councils deal with reality in all its messy details.

---

I'm merely saying that your tradition is based on man's tradition, not God's word. Perhaps not worthless, but certainly not something you bind all believers' consciences to upon pain of anathema (separation from God). This is exactly how God's church and his true gospel has gotten corrupted.

---

A little arrogant to say you know God's word. I think Sam has great insight.

Where does Jesus (or anyone else in the NT) tell us that Mark and Hebrews are considered scripture?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

You're talking about two different "authorities". One which is the source of Scripture - God, who gives us the canon, and the other which is the "authority" of men that get together and decide what that canon is for the church to receive. The first is infallible, the second is not. So the actual canon can't be fallible, because it's from God. However, the recognition of that canon is indeed fallible, because it is up to men. The "canon" decided by man is subject to fallibility, the actual canon of God never is.

The actual canon is never reliant on human authority. That's the fundemental misconception you have. The question really is: do you have the right canon from God? If you're listening to the authority of men (i.e. councils) then it's subject to question. If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You assume that all evidence is either divinely inspired or utterly worthless. Convenient, but not realistic. The Church and its councils deal with reality in all its messy details.

---

I'm merely saying that your tradition is based on man's tradition, not God's word. Perhaps not worthless, but certainly not something you bind all believers' consciences to upon pain of anathema (separation from God). This is exactly how God's church and his true gospel has gotten corrupted.

---

A little arrogant to say you know God's word. I think Sam has great insight.

---

I think Sam just realized how wrong he must be now.

Thank you.

Coke Bear said:

---

Where does Jesus (or anyone else in the NT) tell us that Mark and Hebrews are considered scripture?

---

Jesus doesn't say anything about which books are to be "Scripture". Rather, Jesus gives his promise to the apostles, and to no one else, that they would carry his word. Mark is considered to be the recording of Peter's preachings. The church considered Hebrews to have been written by Paul. Paul was sent by Jesus to preach to the world, so it only makes sense that Paul's word was Jesus' word. That is, unless you beliieve Jesus sent Paul to lie to the whole world.

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

You're talking about two different "authorities". One which is the source of Scripture - God, who gives us the canon, and the other which is the "authority" of men that get together and decide what that canon is for the church to receive. The first is infallible, the second is not. So the actual canon can't be fallible, because it's from God. However, the recognition of that canon is indeed fallible, because it is up to men. The "canon" decided by man is subject to fallibility, the actual canon of God never is.

The actual canon is never reliant on human authority. That's the fundemental misconception you have. The question really is: do you have the right canon from God? If you're listening to the authority of men (i.e. councils) then it's subject to question. If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

We both share the same exact New Testament Canon exactly as recognized by the early Church.

The New Testament canon was recognized through a long, communal, ecclesial process, not by private insight or self authentication. Churches evaluated writings based on apostolic origin, orthodox content, liturgical usage, and widespread reception across the Christian world. Disputed books like Hebrews , James, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were debated for centuries precisely because their status was not self evident. Consensus only emerged when the Church gathered in councils and guided by her bishops, formally affirmed which books were to be read as Scripture and which were to be excluded. This historical process is what "canonization" actually refers to. The Church believes she was guided by the Holy Spirit in the recognition of canon through corporate discernment of the Church over time through bishops, councils, liturgical practice and the rule of faith already received. I rely on the early Church authority...you do as well.

When you said "So the actual canon can't be fallible, because it's from God. However, the recognition of that canon is indeed fallible", that doesn't make sense...all we have is the recognition of the canon by the Church. What is this process of the canon coming from God you're referring to, how did that take place?

Are you trying to argue that scripture alone tells us which scripture is legitimate? If so, that's insane.

Coke Bear said:

---

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

---

Indeed.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

It is interesting.

Churches catering to folks who won't procreate and almost certainly won't raise devoted progeny. Hoisting themselves on their own petard.

---

Wife grew up in a neighborhood Presbyterian Church in the Balcones area of Austin. We were married there. Teaching was never great, but it had a lot of good people and committed Christians. And then about a decade or so ago, when the Presbyterians voted to allow same-sex couples into leadership positions, it slowly started to change. Most of the committed Christians left, though a few misguided ones remain.

We decided to visit the 11 p.m. Christmas Eve service this year after not visiting in about 8 or so years, and it was incredible. Hardly anyone at the church, and about half in the meager audience were same sex couples. Pastor has a rainbow sash and made positive reference to homosexuality on several occasions. We ended up walking out.

---

There are churches and denominations who have been turned over to satan and should be left for dead.

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

Coke Bear said:

---

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

---

This doesn't make sola scriptura "fall apart". You're essentially arguing that "since sola scriptura isn't a circular argument, it falls apart". This is very poor logic.

You and your compadres continually demonstrate a very poor understanding of sola scriptura.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

---

Indeed.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

---

Great!

Now.... what is this tradition that they're referring to? You have it? How do you know it came from them?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

---

Indeed.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

---

Great!

Now.... what is this tradition that they're referring to? You have it? How do you know it came from them?

---

The New Testament itself shows how that oral teaching is preserved: apostolic succession through the laying on of hands.

The apostles didn't just write letters and disappear. They appointed successors and charged them to guard and pass on what they received (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 2:2). That creates a visible and historical chain of transmission: Paul > Timothy > faithful men > others…not private reconstruction centuries later.

If apostolic succession is rejected, then the "oral traditions" Paul commands us to hold simply become unknowable, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is emptied of real meaning.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

---

Indeed.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

---

Great!

Now.... what is this tradition that they're referring to? You have it? How do you know it came from them?

---

The New Testament itself shows how that oral teaching is preserved: apostolic succession through the laying on of hands.

The apostles didn't just write letters and disappear. They appointed successors and charged them to guard and pass on what they received (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 2:2). That creates a visible and historical chain of transmission: Paul > Timothy > faithful men > others…not private reconstruction centuries later.

If apostolic succession is rejected, then the "oral traditions" Paul commands us to hold simply become unknowable, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is emptied of real meaning.

---

Okay, but again... what is this tradition that Paul was referencing, and where is it? From what line of apostolic succession, and how do you know it came from them?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

---

Indeed.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

---

Great!

Now.... what is this tradition that they're referring to? You have it? How do you know it came from them?

---

The New Testament itself shows how that oral teaching is preserved: apostolic succession through the laying on of hands.

The apostles didn't just write letters and disappear. They appointed successors and charged them to guard and pass on what they received (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 2:2). That creates a visible and historical chain of transmission: Paul > Timothy > faithful men > others…not private reconstruction centuries later.

If apostolic succession is rejected, then the "oral traditions" Paul commands us to hold simply become unknowable, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is emptied of real meaning.

---

Okay, but again... what is this tradition that Paul was referencing, and where is it? From what line of apostolic succession, and how do you know it came from them?

---

Its preserved in the life of the Church: in her liturgy, sacraments, creeds, and consistent teaching. The Church existed and functioned for a very long time before a New Testament canon existed, which means this tradition had to be transmitted personally and communally, not as a future text reconstruction project. On a side note, liturgy played a major role in canonization.

Christ gives the Apostles the powers to BIND and
LOOSE, and to forgive and remit sin (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; John 20:21-23). This language is not symbolic. Binding and loosing is a direct continuation of Levitical priestly authority, now fulfilled and elevated in Christ.

The Apostles named SUCCESSORS who kept the same gifts as above. The True Church is ran in a 3 office setup: Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. Bishops can name NEW
Bishops. Bishops can ordain priests and deacons. This is the Apostolic Succession.

The Bishops have AUTHORITY directly from God, just like the Levites did.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Sola Scriptura falls apart very easily. The Bible NEVER stated that it is the ONLY infallible source of authority.

---

Indeed.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

---

Great!

Now.... what is this tradition that they're referring to? You have it? How do you know it came from them?

---

The New Testament itself shows how that oral teaching is preserved: apostolic succession through the laying on of hands.

The apostles didn't just write letters and disappear. They appointed successors and charged them to guard and pass on what they received (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 2:2). That creates a visible and historical chain of transmission: Paul > Timothy > faithful men > others…not private reconstruction centuries later.

If apostolic succession is rejected, then the "oral traditions" Paul commands us to hold simply become unknowable, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is emptied of real meaning.

---

Okay, but again... what is this tradition that Paul was referencing, and where is it? From what line of apostolic succession, and how do you know it came from them?

---

Its preserved in the life of the Church: in her liturgy, sacraments, creeds, and consistent teaching. The Church existed and functioned for a very long time before a New Testament canon existed, which means this tradition had to be transmitted personally and communally, not as a future text reconstruction project. On a side note, liturgy played a major role in canonization.

Christ gives the Apostles the powers to BIND and
LOOSE, and to forgive and remit sin (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; John 20:21-23). This language is not symbolic. Binding and loosing is a direct continuation of Levitical priestly authority, now fulfilled and elevated in Christ.

The Apostles named SUCCESSORS who kept the same gifts as above. The True Church is ran in a 3 office setup: Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. Bishops can name NEW
Bishops. Bishops can ordain priests and deacons. This is the Apostolic Succession.

The Bishops have AUTHORITY directly from God, just like the Levites did.

---

"Binding and loosing" did not refer to the ability to change, add, or subtract anything from Jesus' gospel or any of God's laws.

And apostolic succession of their authority and gifts is a completely non-scriptural, and thus non-apostolic belief.

Just piggy-backing on what you mentioned here is the fact that the Church also discerned what WASN'T scripture.

They discerned that the Didache, the Sheppard of Herman's, and the Epistle of Barnabas were not part of the canon.

The Church was the final and infallible authority of determining scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

---

Are you sure you're not Catholic?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

---

Interesting. You are using extra-biblical sources to confirm a doctrine NOT found in the Bible (the canon of the NT), but you won't accept extra Biblical sources for other doctrines or beliefs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

---

Are you sure you're not Catholic?

---

I think the real question is.... are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church catholic?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

Quote:

---

GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

"Binding and loosing" did not refer to the ability to change, add, or subtract anything from Jesus' gospel or any of God's laws.

---

No Catholic would disagree with any of that.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

---

Interesting. You are using extra-biblical sources to confirm a doctrine (the canon of the NT), but you won't accept extra Biblical sources for other doctrines or beliefs.

---

The canon of the NT is not a doctrine.

You guys are just so sloppy with logic and with concepts, it's getting quite tiring.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

"Binding and loosing" did not refer to the ability to change, add, or subtract anything from Jesus' gospel or any of God's laws.

---

No Catholic would disagree with any of that.

---

If they don't disagree with it, then perhaps they should stop doing it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

---

Interesting. You are using extra-biblical sources to confirm a doctrine (the canon of the NT), but you won't accept extra Biblical sources for other doctrines or beliefs.

---

The canon of the NT is not a doctrine.

You guys are just so sloppy with logic and with concepts, it's getting quite tiring.

---

The Council of Trent says that the canon is doctrine.

Once again, you are using extra-biblical sources to affirm your belief, but refuse to accept other extra-biblical sources for other beliefs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

---

Interesting. You are using extra-biblical sources to confirm a doctrine (the canon of the NT), but you won't accept extra Biblical sources for other doctrines or beliefs.

---

The canon of the NT is not a doctrine.

You guys are just so sloppy with logic and with concepts, it's getting quite tiring.

---

The Council of Trent says that the canon is doctrine.

Once again, you are using extra-biblical sources to affirm your belief, but refuse to accept other extra-biblical sources for other beliefs.

---

The Council of Trent contradicts its own previous church councils, and even anathematizes Athanasius for his canon.

Canon isn't doctrine.

Extrabiblical sources can be used to affirm Jesus' existence. Does that mean we believe extrabiblical sources as God's word?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

---

Interesting. You are using extra-biblical sources to confirm a doctrine (the canon of the NT), but you won't accept extra Biblical sources for other doctrines or beliefs.

---

The canon of the NT is not a doctrine.

You guys are just so sloppy with logic and with concepts, it's getting quite tiring.

---

The Council of Trent says that the canon is doctrine.

Once again, you are using extra-biblical sources to affirm your belief, but refuse to accept other extra-biblical sources for other beliefs.

---

The Council of Trent contradicts its own previous church councils, and even anathematizes Athanasius for his canon.

Canon isn't doctrine.

Extrabiblical sources can be used to affirm Jesus' existence. Does that mean we believe extrabiblical sources as God's word?

---

fThis is NOT. The Council of attempt did NOT anathematize Athanasius for his canon.

He is a Saint in the Church.

We're not talking about the existence of Jesus. We are talking about the the fact you can't use the Bible to prove Mark and Hebrews are canon which completely negates the false belief of SS.