[OLD REGGIE]

It was canonized by the Constantinian regime. That's good enough for me.

Not really. Why, the RCC version of the Old Testament wasn't canonized for more than a thousand years or so after Constantine.

The Bible, and all the books in it (including many that didn't make the cut) was written hundreds and thousands of years before there was a RCC.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

70ad in Yavneh for Hebrew scriptures.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

The Bible, and all the books in it (including many that didn't make the cut) was written hundreds and thousands of years before there was a RCC.

You're getting sidetracked anyway. I wasn't talking about when books were written. I was talking about who got to choose which books made the cut and how Protestants are in agreement with these people. And I'm sure doctrine was strongly considered.

[Cronos]

The Bible, and all the books in it (including many that didn't make the cut) was written hundreds and thousands of years before there was a RCC.

You only see the word ROMAN, you forget that the APOSTOLIC Church consists of the Oriental (Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian), Assyrian, Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc.), Catholic (Roman, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Chaldean etc.) Churchs. This APOSTOLIC Church has existed, as the name tells you, since they were founded by the APOSTLES i.e. to the 1st century. The Canon was decided by this overall Church. The RCC is a branch of this Apostolic Church.

The Canon was closed by this Apostolic Church WITH the Pope's decision. Do YOU accept other works like the Gospel of Thomas? that was tossed aside by the Church, so I guess that's a good enough reason for it to be accepted by you

[magisterium]

No. The entire canon of the Bible (OT & NT) was ratified by four separate Catholic councils and their respective papal concurences between 382 and 419. Trent dogmatically declared the canon in the 16th Century because Protestantism had already moved to alter the OT canon and was still toying with the idea of altering the NT canon as well. It decalred the canon dogmatically to act as a bulwark against the spirit of the age in which Trent existed.

If you look at the history of ecumenical councils, you will find that such is usually the case - dogmatic assertions about such-and-such are not made until there is a controversy anout such-and-such, and the correct teaching must be publicly promulgated. Case in point: the Trinity was defined at Nicaea in 325 NOT because it was all of a sudden dreamed-up then, but because there was enough controversy denying what was *already* taught in the Catholic Church that formal definition of the Trinity was needed to set everyone straight.