[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

**** without “church tradition”, how would we KNOW which books are canonical and which are not? for example, without “church tradition” why do you accept the Book of Hebrews as Scripture,****

If I remember my history, the Roman church rejected Hebrews but accepted Revelation.

The Greek church accepted Hebrews and rejected Revelation.

So in the final compilation of scriptures each agreed to allow both those books in the Bible.

So Church Tradition had nothing to do with these two books.

[Elsie]

So Church Tradition had nothing to do with these two books.

I guess it depends on WHICH 'church'; eh?

---

 

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'  

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

better hit those history books harder next time.

there was no “roman” church and no “greek” church, there was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church comprised of romans and greeks.

the great schism did not occur until the 11th century, the canon was set in the 4th century.