Replies

That’s all well and good... but it doesn’t give even a hint as to how specific books were accepted or rejected from the Canon of Scripture.

That premise would apply if Scriptures were not Divinely Inspired. It also shows the mindset you approach from. Man-made.

Did you review the Scriptures posted? Or are you approaching the subject as would a skeptic or atheist who deny the Scriptures are Inspired?

[paladinan]
That’s all well and good... but it doesn’t give even a hint as to how specific books were accepted or rejected from the Canon of Scripture.

[redleghunter]
That premise would apply if Scriptures were not Divinely Inspired. It also shows the mindset you approach from. Man-made.

(?) I'm not sure you understand. Go back in time (in your imagination) to the point before even the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the OT) were compiled in one place and recognized as Scripture. The process was not neat and clean; there were spurious books claiming to be Scripture in almost every age (cf. some books claiming to be in the OT were 3 and 4 Maccabees, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, etc.; do a search for "Pseudepigrapha", and you'll find plenty; some books claiming to be in the NT were Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc.)

Now, consider this logically (without any emotional sentiment--however understandable--getting in the way): if the Bible isn't "settled" yet... i.e. if a definitive "table of contents" hadn't been decided yet... then one can't simply "consult the Scriptures" to see which books should be in the Scriptures! Don't you see? It'd be like asking a person who isn't yet conceived in his mother's womb about what name he would prefer to have! (I agree that it'd be a polite and sound thing to do, save for only one problem: it's logically impossible, since the person doesn't yet exist in order to ask him!)

Not only do none of the Biblical books name any specific books as "Scripture" (St. Peter refers to some of the writings of St. Paul as Scripture, but he never specifies *which ones* are Scripture... and if we weren't yet confident that 2 Peter is Scripture, ITSELF (you may be aware, from your biblical studies, that 2 Peter was rather hotly contested--see "Muratorian Fragment", and other topics, on that), then its "endorsement" would be worthless! (I assume you don't accept the Book of Mormon; so you wouldn't accept the NT simply because the Book of Mormon says they're true, right?)

Does that clarify? No, I have no desire to "disprove the Scriptures"; I merely point out (among other things) that the Scriptures are not meant to be used ALONE, and that they never make that claim for themselves. I (along with any faithful, well-informed Catholic) esteem all 73 books of the Bible as the true Written Word of God, inerrant and God-breathed, never fear.