Never denied that, but one more time they had copies of the canon that existed INDEPENDENT of the councils of Rome in the 2nd century ...
Thank you for admitting the Bible existed prior to the Protestant version.
LOL
Now, how do you separate out these 4th Century manuscripts from the Catholic Church? How do you reconcile their similarity to the Latin Vulgate? How do you reconcile their inclusion of the Septuagint? It seems you point to the authority of the Roman Catholic Bible and the Orthodox version while discrediting the Bible of the Protestant Reformation.
ONE MORE TIME the NT existed before the councils of Rome ..that is why they are all similar..
Jerome used a greek Bible that he believed was originally Origen's
Origen lived before 300 AD and he had all the books of the Bible..
But, who compiled these manuscripts and determined what was in, and what was out, and by what authority? Same question as before.
One more time..it was not Rome, all Rome did was codify for the Catholic church the scriptures that already existed and were already assembled and IN USE and that was not even OFFICIAL until trent so declared..
And, since the Great split between the Western and Eastern Church wouldn’t occur until 1054, You have discredited yourself fully in one post.
I do not know if you are understanding the POINT ...when the East and West split has nothing to do with anything..it is the date of the compilation that matters.. and that is timed somewhere around 350AD long before Hippo ... and those books were in the possession of the church in the east , not the west ...
The books were listed by many of your church fathers .. long before Hippo..
Peter declared the writings of Paul as scripture. The church knew through the Holy Spirit that the writings of its leaders were inspired by God and scripture..they did not need a church council to tell them that..