[Dataman]

A lengthy reply was yours, but still unscholarly nonsense. Your reply has too many biased assumptions to be worthy of consideration, the primary one being that men determined which books were allowed into the canon. Men only acknowledged the inspired books and rejected the false writings.

As to whether a book was disputed or not, all of the books were disputed as is evidenced by ancient and modern gnostics as well as assorted scoffers. This is not to give credibility to the scoffer. True, Luther attempted to reject 4 books from his canon but did not have the authority or backing of true scholarship.

It doesn't matter what "most Christians" think any more than it matters what most gnostics or most anti-Christians think. Truth is truth and it does not depend on the perception of any particular group.

The question of pseudepigrapha has been settled centuries ago. The modern attempt to give the books authority is without reasonable, scholarly or factual basis.

[Natural Law]

I won't try to argue faith, only history. If your personal belief system requires that you accept the Bible as the exclusive work of God's hand then I hope it serves you well.

You can't deny the existance of the Council of Nicea or the political influences on canon.