Replies

What does reading the Second Maccabbees and Esther has to do with anything? The early church fathers (including our Jewish fathers) agreed that Esther was inspired and inerrant. Even though the Book of Esther does not mention God, the work of God can be found within the text. Although Second Maccabees mentions God, that is not a qualification for inspired text, otherwise our discussion could be considered inspired.

Does it follow then that each reader decides which books belong in or out of the Bible since the Bible itself does not specify a complete list of books in the text itself ? Otherwise, ... Tradition !

If you believe comparing the Book of Mormon with Second Maccabees is cognitive dissonance, do you believe the Catholic Church today can officially declare some other writing as God breathed?

Who else would have the authority to include a book recovered by archeology, for example a missing book referenced in the scriptures or another of the Apostle Paul's letters ?

Well it seems like you wish to deflect the discussion.

Each reader does not decide which books belong in or out of the Bible which you already know. The Bible (Protestant) is what was originally agreed to be the inspired and inerrant word of God accepted and used within the Church for over a 1500 years. The Old Testament going further back. The Catholic Church added to it at the Council of Trent. While using “tradition” is an easy cop-out, adding these books wasn’t through the apostolic tradition which Irenaeus talked about. Otherwise you would have to fault the early church fathers for their failure to correctly apply “tradition”. They didn’t include them.

Now if a NEW book was recovered by archeology, by what test would it be deemed “inspired and inerrant”? By the Catholic Church saying it was so? That isn’t much different than Joseph Smith saying his writings were inspired by an angel. Of course, the Catholic Church has been know to accept people who claim angelic visions. What makes Joseph Smith any more different?