[Invincibly Ignorant]

However, you should know this is a subject that really doesn't affect me much and that I fully acknowledge the NT writings were canonized by the Catholic Church. Therefore, even though those verses in context make it seem that most Protestants have the correct interpretation I certainly wouldn't argue with Catholics, whether they be wrong or right at the end of the day, being the final arbitors of those passages.

Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

[Quester]

Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

On some issues ... I agree with you ... on others, I disagree, ... all probably for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do ... with you.

[OLD REGGIE]

Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

Well....I'm not a Protestant but there was no such thing as Papal Authority and the "Infallible" pronouncement of Perpetual Virginity and the RCC when the Bible as we know it today was canonized.

The RCC as we know it today did not exist in the early few hundred years of the "Church".

The retroactive listing of "Popes" and the authority of the RCC is just that - - - retroactive and imaginative.