Replies

So... how, in your view, were the contents of Scripture decided, and on what authority?

The NT church HAD the OT scriptures.. that were given to the Jews and placed in their care ..The NT church considered Pauls letters as scripture even as they were being written..

The 1st century church complied the books written by those that where written by those that had known Christ during His ministry and death , NT scriptures differed from one bishopric to another,with differing opinions as to which books were canonical ..... by the "authority of the Holy Spirit a canon was developed

As much as Rome would like to claim THEY gave the church the canon of scripture..the truth is Rome did not have a closed Canon until trent

Now once again where does Rome get it's "authority " from

The NT church HAD the OT scriptures that were given to the Jews and placed in their care

They had at least TWO DIFFERENT CANONS of IT Scriptures--the Alexandrian Canon (46 books), and the Palestinian Canon (39 books); BOTH were used during the time of Christ and the time of His apostles. (The Alexandrian Canon was also known as the "Septuagint", from the account which says that 70 different scholars [Gk: septa-ginta = seventy] translated the Sacred Texts from Hebrew to Greek, over the course of roughly 200 years, c. 250 B.C. to 50 B.C.)

Since you follow one (the Palestinian), and I follow the other (Alexandrian), we still have a problem. But since I don't use "sola Scriptura", I'm not on to prove my canon from Scripture. You, on the other hand, are. And since you made the original claim in your original post (you're the OP of the thread), it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to make your case logically firm, first. Saying [x], and then replying to objectors, "Well, prove [not x] to me, first, then!", isn't exactly kosher (pun not intended).

Also, there were also plenty of spurious books which were "contending" to be part of the OT Canon; look up "Pseudepigrapha", as I mentioned to redleghunter.

..The NT church considered Pauls letters as scripture even as they were being written.. The 1st century church complied the books written by those that where written by those that had known Christ during His ministry and death,

They compiled books which CLAIMED to be written by those people. Some were certainly authentic; others were not. Some were "caught" and weeded out in the lifetime of the apostles; others were not. The issue was not settled in the 1st century, or in the 2nd, or even in the 3rd; it wasn't until the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the 3rd Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)--almost into the 5th century A.D., and well after all of the Apostles had died.

NT scriptures differed from one bishopric to another,with differing opinions as to which books were canonical ..... by the "authority of the Holy Spirit a canon was developed

Back up. When, exactly, was this done? And where, and by whom? If you simply say, "by the authority of the Holy Spirit, a canon was developed", the Catholic Church would agree with you, 100%... because you don't say anything which the Church doesn't believe, here. Where you differ, I think, is in the idea that the Catholic Church was the God-ordained vehicle through which He guided His Church to the true canon.

As much as Rome would like to claim THEY gave the church the canon of scripture..the truth is Rome did not have a closed Canon until trent

Yes, and no. No, in the sense that the canon authorized by the councils mentioned above (and ratified by the Pope, a few years later) have been in use since the 5th century, without alteration... and all of Christendom accepted it for hundreds of years. (When Luther rejected 2 Maccabees, for example, he was going against roughly 1000 years of formal Christian practice, and against 1500 years of informal acceptance by everyone since before the time of Christ on Earth. Yes, in the sense that the Church was forced to declare the canon solemnly against those who decided to question it (after 1000 years)... just as the Church formally "defined" the dogma of the Trinity in 325 A.D. The Church didn't "create" the canon at Trent, any more than She "created" the Blessed Trinity at Nicaea; She merely declared the truth infallibly, so as to settle the controversy over the matter.

Now once again where does Rome get it's "authority " from

From Christ, Himself. He built One Church (Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 4:5, etc.) as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)... as Scripture and Christian history both testify.

As much as Rome would like to claim THEY gave the church the canon of scripture..the truth is Rome did not have a closed Canon until trent

Actually, whether Trent actually closed the canon is something some RCs themselves debate, but as it did define 73 books as being Scripture then many rail against Luther for "removing" books, though these were never infallibly defined as being Scripture till after Luther died, and such dissent had notable scholarly company.