Well, the RCC certainly didn't!
The local churches had the scriptures long before any Council recognized them offically.
water of the womb If Jesus wanted to say "flesh" or "womb" in John 3:5, He would have said so: both words are used in the immediate context.
The word 'flesh' is used in the immediate context of Nicodemos's statement, first using the word 'water' and then talking about the difference between the flesh and the spirit.
Water Baptism isn't anywhere in sight.
What Christ said was to honor the word of God, not Mary He said, "Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it" (Luke 11:28). Mary is first among them.
Mary is never first in anything.
She even 'lost' the Lord (Lk.12:43-44) and couldn't find Him for three days.
Now, how could the 'Queen of Heaven' lose her own son for three entire days!
The queen of heaven that you Roman Catholics 'venerate' is found in Jer.44:18-19, it isn't Mary, who would repudiate such blasphemy!
Peter says ... This is what he says: "Whereunto baptism being of the like form [water], now saveth you also" (1 Peter 3:21).
Yes and the water that saved Noah did not get Noah wet, it killed the rest of the world.
So the water did not purify Noah, it represented death, not purification.
Noah was saved by getting in the Ark,(a type ofChrist) not the water-
Peter is telling you to do likewise.
Thus, Noah's 'baptism' is a figure of the Christian baptism, the water representing death and that is why the christian is immersed and than brought back up, identifying with the death, burial and resurrrection of Christ (Rom.6, 1Cor.15)
AMEN! AMEN!
True. These churches were Catholic, and the scriptures were complete, with the Deuterocanons.
The rest of your post is not worth time responding.