Replies

1 - I’m not interested in proving that scripture is scripture. You decide to accept it or not. You will be judged by God, not by me, so you must follow your conscience.

2 - If you prefer, “The Pope said so”, that is also your choice. I’m underwhelmed by it.

3 - Did anyone wait to use the Gospels, or Paul’s writing, as scripture until 400 AD, when the local church councils were held?

Nope. They were being used and accepted as scripture and authoritative before ANY church council declared anything. Thus, I conclude that it was a bottom-up process. For it to have been a top-down process, folks would have needed to wait until 400 AD at least - and arguably until the 1500s.

Every local church had its own canon. Some churches regarded the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians as scripture.

Perhaps James,Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation should be thrown into the apocrypha using your reasoning about the Old Testament scriptures because their inspiration was doubted by many for about 200 years.

Even Martin Luther doubted their authenticity. And considering you don’t accept any Church councils, why not believe the Gnostic books are more authentic.

If the Church is fallible then so is the canon.

Mr Rogers wrote:

I’m not interested in proving that scripture is scripture. You decide to accept it or not.

Come, now; this is an abdication, not a defense. By that standard, you say (essentially) "I don't know how I know; I just know." Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, adherents to the "Health-and-Wealth Gospel" (i.e. if you have faith, then you'll never want for money or health), and a host of other self-proclaimed Christians all use the same standard that you use--simple appeal to personal "feelings"--and they all disagree with you. It is simple arrogance to insist that you are right, simply because your position is yours; haven't you anything stronger than that?

You will be judged by God, not by me, so you must follow your conscience.

My dear fellow, that simply won't do! Truth is not a matter of "oh, well, let's each follow our own way"; you don't evangelize with "have it your way" as a message, do you? Then what do you consider the truth, and how do you know it? It' s hardly enough to say "I follow the Bible" (the others, with whom you disagree, and some of whom think you're going to hell for disagreeing with them) also do that. You can't say "I'm led by the Spirit"... since all of the other groups who condemn your ideas do the very same. Surely you see the problem? It's not enough to stick one's head in the sand; we must be ready to give reasons for the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Peter 3:15).

If you prefer, “The Pope said so”, that is also your choice. I’m underwhelmed by it.

(*sigh*) You really don't know Catholic teaching, do you? If you can find that dictum in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I'd be obliged if you'd give the reference; otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you're repeating a baseless criticism from an anti-Catholic source.

Did anyone wait to use the Gospels, or Paul’s writing, as scripture until 400 AD, when the local church councils were held?

No, not usually... but they also didn't wait to use the true apocryphal books (the Gospel of Thomas, etc.), either. Do you see the problem, there? In addition, some legitimate books (2 Peter, Revelation, etc.) were rejected in one area, while accepted in another; that would make things rather awkward, yes?

Nope. They were being used and accepted as scripture and authoritative before ANY church council declared anything.

Not quite. See above.

Thus, I conclude that it was a bottom-up process. For it to have been a top-down process, folks would have needed to wait until 400 AD at least - and arguably until the 1500s.

That does not follow, logically. See above... and in addition, no one was arguing that virtually all of the legitimate books were used at some points, and in some areas; but the fact remained that there were significant disagreements, and no unanimity such as you might have envisioned. That came only when the matter was submitted to the Church, Who spoke authoritatively and infallibly on the matter, settling all reasonable doubt.