What's more, you accepted the Apostolic Tradition and Magesterium TWO other times, as follows, chronologically:
1. Council of Jerusalem, called by Peter, in 49 A.D. to define what the Gentiles had to do to become Christians. The Jews, who were the Bishops before 70 A.D. wanted the Gentiles to become Jewish and embrace the entire Mosaic law. The Gentiles did not want to do that. Paul was their voice. So the MAGESTERIUM, all the bishops at the time and Peter, the Bishop of Rome and POPE, met in Jerusalem. Paul convinced Peter and Peter convinced the rest of the Magesterium. The Gentiles needed to do only three things to become Christian. Thus the work of the Apostolic Tradition and the Magesterium.
Look it up, if you don't believe me. It's simple history.
2. The Council of Nicea, called by the Pope, brought together the Magisterium again, to combat the heresy Aryianism. The outcome was the Nicene Creed.
So the Magesterium, called those THREE times by the POPE, successor of Peter, first bishop of Rome, decided:
What you needed to be a Christian,
What the tenets of your faith were, and
Which 27 documents (There were hundreds of documents circulating around the early Church and the Magesterium had to authenticate those documents that were valid.) were to be the New Testament.
And you say it's baloney. Okay. That's enough from you. God help you. The Catholic Church gathered together the Scripture of the New Testament and not until 420 A.D. That also is just simple history. Before THAT it was APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the MAGESTERIUM. They PRECEDE the BOOK we know as the New Testament.
But, DON'T believe history, according to the world view of EVEN well read Protestants, believe your own world view according to you. You're dead wrong but then I have the world behind me and your have your own misinterpretation.
Already did.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Who was it again who said My sentence is?
Don’t give me that crap from the CC that Peter was the leader. If he was it would have been him who made the final decision.
>> Council of Jerusalem, called by Peter<<
How about we read scripture before we believe that RCC lie?
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they (Who? certain men) determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them (Who? Some of the certain men), should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
It was not Peter who called the meeting. It was the “certain men who decided they should go to Jerusalem to meet with all the apostles to decide. Peter spoke at that meeting as did Barnabas and Paul, it was then that the leader of the group, James made the decision and said wherefore my sentence is. There is no way anyone could conclude from that passage that Peter was in a leadership position in any way. It’s another lie from the RCC.
The entire basis of the hierarchy of the RCC is built on a lie. As a matter of fact they cannot prove that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome let alone the first Pope. Paul wrote to the Romans and never once mentioned Peter being there. No one did. He was NOT the leadership in Rome.