“Simply to challenge your sure statement that the RCC canon of Scripture is “exactly” the same as the fourth century Vulgate. You seem to demand that others concede to you and your opinions a lot. You have been quite hesitant to ever do so yourself.”
I personally find it amusing that protestants are relying upon the testimony of Catholic bishops in an attempt to buttress their own position. I’m not exactly sure how you can argue that “bishops don’t have authority”, and then turn around and quote Athanasius.
I’m sure he dealt with similar things himself.
I’m even more amused to see a protestant actually abandon his own thesis and make the argument that this canon (which isn’t protestant) is the actual canon simply because it includes a few books that the Catholic church does not.
Fine - I’m happy to go there. Are you willing to accept the canon you proposed as legitimate?
The longer I participate on this thread, the more amused I get with the tactics y'all are using. You've done it with GPH and, now, with me. Show me where I said "bishops don't have authority". Must you invent controversy and counter-arguments just to provide yourself more targets to pretend to shoot? There is not much more to talk about that hasn't already been hashed and rehashed and rerun and regurgitated already here.
One final note, though, WRT these "Catholic" bishops you presume are the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church. ANYONE can use their writings to demonstrate various things without conferring infallability or ultimate "authority" to them. Sometimes it is simply to show that what the modern-day RCC exploits of them to prove THEIR authority is not so cut and dried as presumed.