The difference is that I do not write your responses, but I can collect them into a book and call them "Halrey's Follies."
Not even the early church fathers would have the adacity to make this kind of statement nor was it ever a view of the Church that "they put it together"
The early Church Fathers did not explicitly agree with each other as to which books constitute the New Testament canon until the end of the 4th century -- and beyond. In fact, various biblical redactions and additions were made by different Church councils since then, by Luther, even by Thomas Jefferson, and are being made to this date.
Someone here directed me to Ireaneus. I'd suggest that some should reread his views on the holy scripture
+Irenaeus (130-202 AD) knew only 16 books of the NT (the others were not written yet!). Early Christian fathers referred only to the Old Testament as Scripture.
Also, early Christians, depending where they were, favored different books over others. Thus, Jewish Christians generally rejected +Paul's epistles, and favored +James, whereas Gentile Christians preferred +Paul over +James.
Even Rome, at one point, included the Apocalypse of Peter as one of the NT books later rejected by the Church.
As late as 300 AD the following books were still disputed: Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Diatessaron, Gospel of the Hebrews, Hebrews, Acts of Paul, James, 2nd Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter, and the Synod of Laodicea in 363 still excludes Revelation of John.
At various times in the early Church history, even the Old Testament contained anywhere from 22 to 27 books and also seven or more books which Luther called "Apocrypha."
So, from your responses, I can tell that you have no clue how or when the New Testament (or the Old Testament for that matter) came into existence. You can, of course, believe whatever you wish, but if you choose to do so in ignorance it may be better if you did not dispute verifiable facts.
Oh really? When did the Church write Paul's letters. He might sue for plagerism.
Well did or did not the Church write the letters? You tell me the Church doesn't claim to have written them and then you turn around and say that after everyone was dead and gone they didn't exist. You'll find this wasn't the belief of the early church. They should know.