That “theology” came from the Apostles and before the Bible.
Like it or not,Dear friend, it is the early Church Fathers who you trust as witnesses to believe the Bible is the word of God ,and if their “theology” as you say, does not jive with yours, the likelihood of your theology being wrong is great.
The fact is that none of the Scriptures are signed by the Apostles and only scraps remain.
Kosta has posted the pictures of these scraps many times here.
No amigo, it is the self-attestation of the Scripture itself that I trust.
***if their “theology” as you say, does not jive with yours, the likelihood of your theology being wrong is great.***
While you may be deluded into thinking that along the time continuum the early fathers were homogeneous in their theology I hold no such delusions. My theology needs to “jive” with the prophets and apostles who were the ones who received the revelation. The fathers merely interpreted revelation and where they interpreted correctly I agree and where they misinterpreted I throw it out with the garbage.
***The fact is that none of the Scriptures are signed by the Apostles***
This is an instructive statement as it goes to show the discursive thinking of the heirarchialist. At the bottom of “Catholic” thinking is a reliance on old Enlightenment epistemology's that believe that truth may only be obtained only through empirical evidence. This debunked epistemology tries to build a foundation on sand and as the edifice grows more and more false premises are tossed out to protect the leaning tower. The statement above is just one of many laughable premises used to try to prop up the theology of glory.
***only scraps remain.***
Enough scraps to put the whole revelation together along with scraping the redacted Latin Vulgate.
No one has claimed any authorship of any of what we now consider NT writings until after 150 AD. No one ever quoted a verse and identified the Apostle who was believed to have written it. St. Justin Martyr makes first mention only of "apostolic memoirs." Are memoirs scriptures?
Even the Church Fathers, close to the end of the second century AD, did not presume that the Gospels and Epistles were written by God (although I am sure they believed the authors were "moved" or "inspired" by Him), as they began to assign apostolic authorship to the extant manuscripts read in churches.
In assigning authorship to those manuscriptsd, the Church did not fall the sin of presumption and called them outright "the Gospel of Matthew" for example, but simply used the words kata, which means according to, i.e. Kata Maththaion, According to Matthew. Which is to say it is a narrative of Christ's ministry as seen (since he was a witness, like St. John) and remembered (since it was written 30 years after Christ, 60 years in John's case) by the Apostle. In the case of St. Mark and St. Luke, the same would mean "as told by others" (since they were not eye witnesses) and remembered (since both were written decated after Christ).
They even titled the Book of Revelation Apokalypsis Ioannu or The Revelation of John. Which some have found "incorrect" and renamed to John, and some have simply renamed the whole thing as the Revelation of Christ.
So, if we can't even trust the Church Fathers to pick the correct names of the very Bible we consider the word of God, how can we trust their collection of manuscripts as the pristine word of God considering that their pick was but bare two dozen manuscriptis out of a pool of some 200-plus books circulating in the first three centuries after Christ?
In order for the Bible to be accepted as the Scripture, it must be accepted as it was accepted by those who accepted it to begin with. For, if there is any possibility of any error in the canon, or even a title, then we cannot be sure.
Either the decision of what will be in the canon and how it will read is an infallible decision or it is not. If it is infallible, then the Revelation of John stands whether we understand it or not, and the Church remains the correct interpreter of the Scripture. If it is fallible, then none of it stands. Take your pick.