Just as the Apostles recognized God, by what He had to say, so to did the men who read his words since then. The books of the NT are written by apostles and their associates. They were not written by Church members throughout the ages.
>>But the Church decided upon which books were spurious and which were products of divine inspiration in the 4th century. If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have the New Testament you take for granted. Maybe you should be reading Thomas, Peter, Judas and Bartholemew instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. What authority do you have to say the neo-Gnostics are wrong about what books belong in the Bible?
>>All you have is your own private interpretation. The canon of Scripture is Tradition with a big T. Its definition came from God through the Church.
The books were known from the time of the apostles and their associates and the NT is limited to those authors. See #148. "If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have the New Testament you take for granted.
God promised in Isaiah 59:21 that I and others would have the words of Jesus. He did not promise anyone would have authority over me, rational thought, or authority for anyone to dictate any doctrine whatsoever.
"Maybe you should be reading Thomas, Peter, Judas and Bartholemew
I've looked at them and concluded they were not written by the authors claimed, nor are any of them logically consistent with what the Apostles and their associates wrote.
"What authority do you have to say the neo-Gnostics are wrong about what books belong in the Bible?"
I have both the authority of a ratitonal mind and free will given as a gift, as per Gen 1, to know, understand and evaluate and judge all things.
"The canon of Scripture is Tradition with a big T.
Scripture is not tradition. It is scripture. Tradition consists of other things, not contained in scripture.
" Its definition came from God through the Church."
Scripture consists of Books written by the Apostles and their assiciates. You can otherwise have any traditions you want and define anything you desire within your tradition. Tradition however is not scripture, and does not alter the contents, or meaning of scripture.
"All you have is your own private interpretation."
There is only one truth. Either I am correct, or I am not. All that matters is the evidence given in scripture, and handed down according to God's promise in Isaiah 59:21 and logic. Authority is not a logical operation, nor does it function as a valid logical operator. It has no place in logic, nor does democracy.
But the Church decided upon which books were spurious and which were products of divine inspiration in the 4th century.
Your statement here is false, too. The canon was not even definitively established for purposes of the Roman Church until Trent, and that furthermore, that one of the books decreed by the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage to be canonical to which you refer, Septuagint I Esdras, was later removed by the Council of Trent. So much for the alleged infallibility of the church. By the bizarre, fact-twisting logic that says that canonical books were removed by Protestants, guys such as Pope Gregory the Great, St. Jerome and even the Roman church officials at the Council of Trent must have been Protestants, too.
Before you start talking about protestant lies you should get your own historical facts straight.
Cordially,