Replies

Many churches had already accepted the books included in canon by the various church leaders in the councils so the councils did not put together the scriptures but simply ratified what the churches were already accepting as inspired and authentic

Those churches were part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not some disconnected churches of independent or non-Apostolic origin. In fact very few individual churches proposed any canons. The leader among those who did was St. Athanasius who, by the year 360 or so, compiled what was later agreed upon at the Council of Carthage for the whole Church.

No matter how you turn it around, it was the knowledge of the Church, and the authority to discern the inspired from the profane, that allowed the Church fathers to put together a canon you worship as Bible, yet at the same time you deny that the Church has the authority/kmnowledge to interpret those very books the Church interpreted as holy, the interpretation which you accept!

The Protestant attitude is "yes, the Church did decide which books are canon, and we accept that, but then the Church 'lost' that knowledge afterwords." C'mon, get real.

That’s an incredible statement for it puts in question the perfection of Jesus since by your theology, his conception and birth was the result of divine-human cooperation

How do you know what was written and when? How do you know the original Gospels really contained those verses? How do you know some verse were not added later?

Simple. You don't know. You don't know because the originals are lost. We have shreds ("fragments") of some older copies, oldest one being early 2nd century. Few lines here and few lined there. The earliest completembibles (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), written in Byzantine-text-type show fantastic variation among each other; the Gospel of Mark is considerably shorter than in modern bibles. And none of the bibles prior to the 15th century contain the famous Comma Johanneum, a well documented and known latter-day addition to 1 John, which is unfortunately still in the KJV.

How can you talk about pristine perfection of anything unless you can corroborate it against the earliest Church practices and writings? The Bible has been washed and dried so many times, we have no way of knowing what is authentic and what is not. Through textual criticism we can figure out which versions are probably "turer" but without that information safeguarded by the Church form the earliest days in terms of worship (liturgy) and church documents, there is no way of corroborating it from the Bible alone.

“Those churches were part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not some disconnected churches of independent or non-Apostolic origin.”

There is no evidence that the churches at Damascus, Antioch or Rome for that matter were started by any of the Apostles. In fact the evidence is that they were started by believers who were scattered because of the persecutions.

How do you know if the liturgy is true? Just because “that’s the way we always did it” can’t be the basis for a legitimate church. It could have been wrong in the beginning and perpetuated because the “Church” had too much ego and gelt invested in it. What’s to become of all the ornate buildings, relics, icons and vestments if it is found out that the early church met humbly in homes to sing, pray and share insights they gleaned from their own study or hear a bible teacher? Why Paul says in 1 Cor. 14 that the members, if they have a prophecy are to speak one at a time and to speak to each other in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their hearts. Odd though, he doesn’t mention communion/eucharist. You would think that something so important to one’s salvation would be mentioned often in his letters or in Peter’s or James’ or John’s or the Jerusalem letter to the gentile churches for that matter.

But since we don’t have a reliable bible no tradition I guess we just have to wing it and hope the divine-human cooperation was all that it was cracked up to be. Maybe Benny Hinn is just as right as the Pope or the patriarch? There is not, after all, an infallible guide since everyone, including the “Church” is relying on old habits or the “Gnostic” feeling of the spirit to guide them.