Replies

Many precious Truths of the Christian faith came to us from Apostolic teaching/example not recorded directly in the Biblical text. Crucially, one such truth --- an incredibly important one --- is the Canon of Scripture itself. The Bible did not come to us with a Table or Contents or a list of approved books, recorded in the text itself.

Please stop....you do yourself a disservice by continuing to hold out the Table of Contents as a justification for Roman Catholic "Tradition".

I believe I have demonstrated to you that a good part of the NT was already accepted as Scripture by 70 AD.

The OT was already in place.

My point is that it is historically and logically incoherent to think there was no church before there was an approved text. The approved text (canon) came from the already-existing Apostolic-rooted community, which knew the teachings of the Apostles from preaching, example and discipleship (which is to say, from Capital "T" Tradition) --- even before they all had the same scroll collection.

If Roman Catholicism truly believed all of the writings they rely upon that are not found in the NT they had a chance at Trent to incorporate them into the NT Canon.

That Rome did not, nor has not, done so is telling.

I find it interesting that when Paul was writing to the church at Rome he did not include any of this nonsense about purgatory or indulgences. Romans is considered to be one of the two most important books in the NT in terms of theology.

Nor did any of the other NT writers mention, by your own admission, indulgences or purgatory.

"the Table of Contents [is not] a justification for Roman Catholic "Tradition"...a good part of the NT was already accepted as Scripture by 70 AD........"

Thank you. You do not invalidate my point, but in fact strengthen it.

A "good deal" was accepted before 70 AD, and this list ("table of contents") was not based on the text of the NT. It was based on the practice of the local churches. The four Gospels, plus Hebrews, are not even signed. They are anonymous. We wouldn't know the Gospels were by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John except that their authorship was widely understood and passed down orally for decades (Handed down orally = Oral Tradition)
But beyond 100 AD, even if the 27 books had been accepted (based Oral Tradition), local discrepancies sometimes emerged.
For instance, the Muratorian Fragment (about 155 - 200 AD), the first written canon we know of, lists most of the New Testament books. It's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired: the 'Epistles' to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians, the 'Apocalypse of Peter', and 'The Shepherd' (written by Hermas).
In the first four centuries AD many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Didache, were revered by many Christians as inspired; but it was later determined that, even if they were true, edifying and useful, they were not on a level with inspired Scripture.
If the whole NT were accepted practically instantly and unanimously, (on the basis of very reliable Oral Tradition), nobody would have had any reason to urgently ask popes and local synods for approved lists. Pope Damasus (382 AD), the third synod of Hippo Regius (393), the synod of Carthage (397), and Pope Innocent I (403 AD), all responded to these requests by approving canonical book lists.
They were not decreeing or innovating here: they were confirming which books were used liturgically, in response to local churches' inquiries.
It's important to get this clear: hey were not imposing but repeating what they already knew from the earliest Tradition.
You write: "The OT was already [I think you mean by 70 AD] in place."
Yes! Exactamundo! We certainly agree on this! And it included the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and I and II Maccabees.
After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai moved the Sanhedrin to Yavne (Jamnia) in Galilee. His rabbinical school reorganized and consolidated Pharisaic Judaism. Thus Rabbinical/Talmudic Judaism survived to be the source of practically all Jewish groups to this very day. They were reacting strongly against the Christian movement, and it was they who removed the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I and II Maccabees.
After that point you could say there were two OT canons: a Christian OT and an abridged Pharisee version that was approved by the School of Rabbi Ben Zakkai.
The great Bible translator Jerome was faced with this dilemma. At first his Hebrew tutor, a Jewish convert, had influenced him to exclude these seven Sacred Books based on his rabbinical training. Jerome would eventually have to choose between the list approved by Rabbinical councils, or the list approved by Christian councils.
After some hesitation to and fro, he went with the Christian OT canon.
Said Jerome in his letter to Rufinus: “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?"
So despite his own tendencies and opinions, he resolved this question the same way that the Popes and Synods did: not by selecting or judging or decreeing on his own, but by confirming that these are the books used by the churches.
Considering that the rabbinical Jews also rejected the entire New Testament, Jerome chose well in the end by accepting the books which were accepted by Christian churches from 70 AD to his own day (late 4th century).
This is the same list, confirmed yet again by Pope Damasus, in his Council of Rome Decree (382), affirming the 73 books of today's unabridged Biblical canon.

Interestingly, it's one these seven Rabbinically-rejected Sacred Books (2 Maccabees) which most clearly shows and approves the Jewish practice of praying for the dead. If at death all souls proceeded immediately to Heaven or to Hell, prayers for the dead would make no sense: those in Heaven don't need them, and those in Hell can't benefit from them. Thus the existence of a temporary "third place" where souls CAN benefit from our prayers, was already well established on the basis of the OT canon already in place circa 70 AD.

I find it interesting that when Paul was writing to the church at Rome he did not include any of this nonsense about purgatory or indulgences.

And when the 'Catholic Church' wrote to Jerusalem in ACTS 15...

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.