“...it was the Catholic Church that put the canon together by consensus of men.”
Various churches, including the RCC, have ratified what their churches believe are scripture. Most have a 27 book canon for the NT. Some do not. Protestants generally deny the Apocrypha as Scripture. The RCC didn’t give an authoritative list of Scripture until the Council of Trent, in response to Reformation critics. I can’t think of any important doctrine founded on any disputed books.
“Then, I am sure, you’d agree that none should talk about if as if it was something logical, objective or factual.”
Actually, I don’t entirely agree. It is not contrary to logic, but it is not contained within logic. Call it logic+. And something can certainly be factual without being subject to logic, since no one possesses perfect logic. Certainly, if God exists, He exists in a way our logic won’t be able to comprehend. God may be a fact without being a conclusion.
However, I would certainly agree that Christianity is about revelation, not logic. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict people, not mine.
The Latin Church ratified the decision of the Third North African Council of Carthage at the end of the 4th century. Subsequently, various popes listed all the books in the canon. Deuterocanoncail OT books (referred to as apocryphal by Protestants) were used in the East. There was never any dispute about them until the Reformation.
The Council of Trent only reiterated the books of the canon used by the Church for 11 centuries. The east never officially declared the books. The use of these books became a matter of consensus (the North African Council was a local council and therefore non binding).
That doesn't explain why the Protestants accept the Christian canon (New Testament) put together by the Church if the church was in 'apostasy' and if her authority is rejected. Surely the Bible didn't fall form the sky like manna.
It is not contrary to logic, but it is not contained within logic. Call it logic+
No, it's not contrary to logic. I agree. Once you make illogical assumptions as the basis of religion, the rest proceeds logically. The problem is that the very foundation is an illogical a priori assumption. Hence the uncertainly is never removed. One never really knows. One has to believe it no matter how bizarre it may seem.
If we assume, illogically, that pink unicorns live on Jupiter, and we accept that assumption as unquestionable truth and fact (let' use a biblical example, it was revealed in a trance), then we can logically proceed to speak of the characteristics, size, and manner, etc. of these unicorns as if they really existed.
And something can certainly be factual without being subject to logic, since no one possesses perfect logic
But until it is logically understood, we do not know what it is!
Certainly, if God exists, He exists in a way our logic won’t be able to comprehend. God may be a fact without being a conclusion
Of course. But since he is "beyond everything" we can never know what God is. If we don't know what God is how can we recognize God? Hence my inquiry: how do you know...it's from God?
However, I would certainly agree that Christianity is about revelation, not logic. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict people, not mine.
How do you know it's the job of the Holy Spirit?