Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

We know what you THINK Scriptures say. But quote some passage that says, “complete, and all that you need”.

---

Already did.

Quote:

---

Yes, he certainly didn't have New Testament Scriptures to read. What do you think he was doing all those years after being struck by the 'light'? Writing his epistles so that he can then turnaround and read them, and thereby becoming enlightened? Boy, even that one doesn't take much wattage.

---

I see your rambling about something but what is your point?

Quote:

---

So they searched the New Testaments? Or the Septuagint, maybe even the book of Maccabees?

---

The book of Maccabees was not accept by any denomination as scripture until your denomination did at the council of Trent, and that was despite Maccabees internally denying inspiration, so that was not referred to as scripture.

Now it appears that you are saying that large parts of the NT (or all of the NT) is not scripture - was that your point?

You keep bringing up the Septuagint for some reason - do you have a point to make about it as a translation?

Quote:

---

Where is it implied or stated that they taught anything else but orthodox Catholic faith?

JoeT

---

Well, for one thing, your denomination did not exist, and secondly many of your denominational teachings came much later.

But what are you trying to do - turn this into a Bible versus your denominational teachings thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

We still don't know who wrote all of them - so what? Where is the supposed contradiction?

---

So you don't believe (or know) that it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote the Gospels?

Catholic Tradition has always held that the authors were the individuals whose name they bear. No ghost writers

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

So you don't beleive (or know) that it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote the Gospels?

---

Who said that? Why must you put up strawman arguments instead of dealing with what was said? Is it too hard to actually deal with the real points which have been made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Well, for one thing, your denomination did not exist

---

Then there is a stupendous problem needing resolution. Where does the Scriptures come from? How did it come to you from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'm interested in hearing the story?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Then there is a stupendous problem needing resolution. Where does the Scriptures come from? How did it come to you from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'm interested in hearing the story?

---

Joe, when I took theology courses (probably before you were born) at a Christian college, this was common knowledge in Christendom:

Mark was the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Then there is a stupendous problem needing resolution. Where does the Scriptures come from? How did it come to you from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'm interested in hearing the story?

JoeT

---

You see a problem with prophetic revelation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Joe, when I took theology courses (probably before you were born) at a Christian college, this was common knowledge in Christendom:

Mark was the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

---

Before I was born?

Most orthodox Catholic theologians hold that the authors are those whose name are born by the Gospel. This has been a long standing tradition of the Church; well, at least since they were written. I looked at the 'Q' years ago, but it might surprise you to know that many don't believe there is a missing Gospel. It's funny that many of the proponents of the Q come from Scripture Only communities - seems like a contradition to me. Its based on parallel and synoptic gospels verses found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and on Mark being the first published Gospel, which can't be proven. Out of thin air a new list of quotes supposedly made by Christ. Without any historical document as evidence the Q should be held with great suspect. It's my understanding - could be wrong - the Q has fallen out of favor even with its own proponents.

Even if the Q did exist, it doesn't provide a historical line from the Scriptures we have today to the Apostles that wrote them. This is the chain that Tj must break; the reason should be obvious to all.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Before I was born?

---

When were you born?

Akoue would be a good reference for current thinking re Q.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

When were you born?

Akoue would be a good reference for current thinking re Q.

---

When was I born? Well let’s see Moses was still in knickers (well it can seem that way sometimes) and Alger Hiss is convicted of perjury; the Knesset passes a resolution that states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; President Harry S. Truman announces a program to develop the hydrogen bomb.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

You see a problem with prophetic revelation?

---

This doesn’t tell the story. I'd like to hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

This doesn’t tell the story. I'd like to hear it.

---

Perhaps you see a problem that I don't. I don't even see what you think might be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Jesus - he did not found a denomination

---

His life and teachings were the foundation for a church that evolved into a catholic church that evolved into the Catholic Church which then split into Eastern and Western divisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

When was I born? Well let’s see Moses was still in knickers (well it can seem that way sometimes) and Alger Hiss is convicted of perjury; the Knesset passes a resolution that states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; President Harry S. Truman announces a program to develop the hydrogen bomb.

---

Yes, before you were born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

His life and teachings were the foundation for a church that evolved into a catholic church that evolved into the Catholic Church which then split into Eastern and Western divisions.

---

Many denominations (in fact most) can rightfully say the same thing - so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Many denominations (in fact most) can rightfully say the same thing - so what?

---

No, they can't. The early church evolved into the Catholic Church. That was THE Christian Church throughout the western world for centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes, before you were born.

---

Well in that case it's no fair picking on the kids in the class!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Perhaps you see a problem that I don't. I don't even see what you think might be a problem.

---

How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim? If the Catholic Church doesn’t do this then who does? I see you as having a big problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Well in that case it's no fair picking on the kids in the class!

---

I wasn't in college yet, but... *breaks into tears*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No, they can't. The early church evolved into the Catholic Church. That was THE Christian Church throughout the western world for centuries.

---

You may believe that to be the case, but there were others. And the one true church was not a denomination in any case, so I am not sure where you are heading with this or what your point is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim?

---

Are you looking for a higher authority than God?

We must have greatly different views because I don't believe there is any higher authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim? If the Catholic Church doesn’t do this then who does? I see you as having a big problem.

---

Who put them all together into something we call the Holy Bible in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Who put them all together into something we call the Holy Bible in the first place?

---

I would suggest that God, being omniscient, decided that before the foundations of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I would suggest that God, being omniscient, decided that before the foundations of the world.

---

But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture? God didn't come down for a visit and bundle them all up together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture? God didn't come down for a visit and bundle them all up together.

---

And neither did a single person do so. Scripture was identified as such with the prophetic revelation of God over many centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

And neither did a single person do so. Scripture was identified as such with the prophetic revelation of God over many centuries.

---

I didn't say a single person did it. I love your use of the passive -- "Scripture was .... "

Who had the prophetic revelation over many centuries?? That's not the question you are trying to avoid. We are talking about who put the Bible together into a unit. We aren't talking about the writers of the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I didn't say a single person did it. I love your use of the passive -- "Scripture was .... "

---

You said:

"But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture?"

I could print it off and physically put it together. What is the significance of that?

Quote:

---

Who had the prophetic revelation over many centuries??

---

That is a topic for a larger study than can be addressed in a simple internet discussion forum. But that is not what is important. What is important is who decided that it was scriptural and that is God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

You said:

"But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture?"

I could print it off and physically put it together. What is the significance of that?



That is a topic for a larger study than can be addressed in a simple internet discussion forum. But that is not what is important. What is important is who decided that it was scriptural and that is God.

---

Tom! Get a grip! The Bible did not appear in its present form after drifting down from heaven onto your coffeetable. It was a whole bunch of writings done by various people in various places. Who verbally and physically pulled it all together into a volume of 66 books and eliminated those books not considered inspired?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Who put them all together into something we call the Holy Bible in the first place?

---

St. Jerome is sometimes thought of as the father of the bible. He made an extensive study and translations of various books and collected writings most of which are found in the bible today. He petitioned Pope Damasus to adopt his list for books for canonization. St. Jerome referred to as bibiotheca Divina, “Divine Library”. The name Bible however comes from the Latin Bblia meaning “The Book”. All of which I'm sure you knew. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome

The short answer is that prior to St. Jerome there were several different lists of books. Sorting through Gnostic and other heretical books as well as candidates for deuterocanonical books. St. Jerome is usually credited with “assembling” the list of books that were ultimately canonized.

Eusebius preserves St. Melito , the bishop of Sardis (c. 170 AD) list of Old Testament canon. The list maintains the Septuagint but only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, (c. 360 A.D), produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. See Canon 60

Pope Damasus, (366-384 A.D), in his Decree, listed the books of today's bible.

The Council of Rome, (382 A.D), was the forum adopted St. Jerome's list of books.

The Council of Hippo (393 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books identical to the Holy Scriptures adopted at Trent.

The Council of Carthage (397 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Carthage in (419 A.D.) offered the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Florence (1441) adopted the canonical books.

The Council of Trent (1556) In reaction to the Protestant schism infallibly defined the canonical books currently used as the Vulgate.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

St. Jerome is sometimes thought of as the father of the bible. He made an extensive study and translations of various books and collected writings most of which are found in the bible today. He petitioned Pope Damasus to adopt his list for books for canonization. St. Jerome referred to as bibiotheca Divina, “Divine Library”. The name Bible however comes from the Latin Bblia meaning “The Book”. All of which I’m sure you knew. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome

The short answer is that prior to St. Jerome there were several different lists of books. Sorting through Gnostic and other heretical books as well as candidates for deuterocanonical books. St. Jerome is usually credited with “assembling” the list of books that were ultimately canonized.

Eusebius preserves St. Melito , the bishop of Sardis (c. 170 AD) list of Old Testament canon. The list maintains the Septuagint but only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, (c. 360 A.D), produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. See Canon 60

Pope Damasus, (366-384 A.D), in his Decree, listed the books of today's bible.

The Council of Rome, (382 A.D), was the forum adopted St. Jerome’s list of books.

The Council of Hippo (393 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books identical to the Holy Scriptures adopted at Trent.

The Council of Carthage (397 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Carthage in (419 A.D.) offered the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Florence (1441) adopted the canonical books.

The Council of Trent (1556) In reaction to the Protestant schism infallibly defined the canonical books currently used as the Vulgate.

JoeT

---

I would say that after this splendid answer our colleague Wondergirl, and all those that woere worried by who put the Bible together, will now be fully satisfied. Of course, provided they were not aiming to prove that the Bible is not what we Christians believe it is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim? If the Catholic Church doesn't do this then who does? I see you as having a big problem.

---

Again Repeated:

1 Thess 5:16-23
Rejoice evermore.

Pray without ceasing.

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Quench not the Spirit.

Despise not prophesyings.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Belief without sight... FAITH ... THE WORD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

It was a whole bunch of writings done by various people in various places. Who verbally and physically pulled it all together into a volume of 66 books and eliminated those books not considered inspired?

---

Are you saying that they are not part of the whole scriptures if they are not "physically" together with the rest? If not, then who "physically" pulled the manuscripts together does not matter in the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Get with the program and read my prior posts before responding, then you will understand what is being said.

---

Here's what you provided:

Quote:

---

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

---

Notice that it doesn't say that Scripture is complete, it says "that the man of God may be complete". Nothing is being said here about the completeness--or incompleteness, for that matter--of Scripture. Clearly what is being said is that Scripture is useful for instruction and correction, both of which are important so "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". This is something pointed out by RickJ already in post #6.

You haven't offered any Scripture in support of the doctrine of sola scriptura. Your repeated mention of the Bereans, like your quotation of 2Tim.3.14-17, doesn't support your sola-scripturist assumptions since these passages show what nobody doubts, namely that Scripture is important, that it is part of God's revelation. Nothing you've said, and none of the Scriptures that you've quoted, show that Scripture alone is the sole standard. Neither have you brought forward any Scripture that provides a list of which books are canonical, so it appears that you are relying upon Tradition in this matter. You also have yet to address those passages cited above which clearly indicate the authoritativeness of oral Tradition. Given that, it is quite evident that it is those who recognize the authority of Tradition who are in fact being Scriptural. Your view, the view that Scriprure alone is the sole standard and authority, has been shown to be un-Biblical. And you have offered nothing but the repetition of your own un-Scriptural assumptions and biases in support of your adherence to the principle of sola scriptura. Your attempt to pass off 2Tim and the account of the Bereans as anything more than an acknowledement of the importance of Scripture further highlights the feebleness of your position (this is all the more glaring since Paul was teaching, i.e. giving oral instruction to, the Bereans).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I would suggest that God, being omniscient, decided that before the foundations of the world.

---

Do you find this in Scripture or is this just your own opinion?

And if the canon was decided upon before the foundations of the world, how do we here on earth know which books were intended by God for inclusion when the Scriptures do not themselves tell us which books are canonical? There is, after all, no list of canonical books provided by any of the books currently assembled in the canon of Scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

When were you born?

Akoue would be a good reference for current thinking re Q.

---

Hi guys. Sorry, I turned in early last night.

It's important to remember that Q is an explanatory hypothesis adduced in order to explain both the similarities and (perceived divergences) among the synoptics themselves and between the synoptics and the Gospel of John. Q is not the only hypothesized ur-Gospel, though it's been around longest and received the most press. It is the case, though, that there are certain phrases which appear verbatim or nearly verbatim in different Gospels written at different times and in different places, and this is of course what has led some to suspect that the writers of the Gospels had at their disposal some source text which recorded the basic narrative of Jesus's life and ministry along with many of his sayings. It is interesting to compare the canonicall Gospels to the many, many non-canonical Gospels, many of which are relatively late but a few of which appear to be quite early, perhaps even earlier than the Gospel of John (which was composed quite late). Some of these were known to the Fathers at the Council of Nicaea, but many were not and so no decision regarding their authenticity--to say nothing of their canonicity--was made. And, as you know, the decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books from the NT were often quite messy. The Gospel of John was very nearly excluded and it was a condition of its inclusion that the Johannine epistles be accepted as well since, it was felt, the epistles correct certain potentially heretical strains in the Gospel itself. We know that Luther gave serious consideration to the exclusion of the book of Revelation, and in this he was, in a sense, following the Council Fathers since many of them opposed its inclusion and they very nearly won the argument. It's probably fair to say that few of the bishops present at Nicaea left feeling entirely satisfied with the canon that had been established. It took some time, and lots of commentaries by people like Augustine and Chrysostom before people's disquiet really died down (or so it seems).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Hi guys. Sorry, I turned in early last night.

It's important to remember that Q is an explanatory hypothesis adduced in order to explain both the similarities and (perceived divergences) among the synoptics themselves and between the synoptics and the Gospel of John. Q is not the only hypothesized ur-Gospel, though it's been around longest and received the most press. It is the case, though, that there are certain phrases which appear verbatim or nearly verbatim in different Gospels written at different times and in different places, and this is of course what has led some to suspect that the writers of the Gospels had at their disposal some source text which recorded the basic narrative of Jesus's life and ministry along with many of his sayings. It is interesting to compare the canonicall Gospels to the many, many non-canonical Gospels, many of which are relatively late but a few of which appear to be quite early, perhaps even earlier than the Gospel of John (which was composed quite late). Some of these were known to the Fathers at the Council of Nicaea, but many were not and so no decision regarding their authenticity--to say nothing of their canonicity--was made. And, as you know, the decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books from the NT were often quite messy. The Gospel of John was very nearly excluded and it was a condition of its inclusion that the Johannine epistles be accepted as well since, it was felt, the epistles correct certain potentially heretical strains in the Gospel itself. We know that Luther gave serious consideration to the exclusion of the book of Revelation, and in this he was, in a sense, following the Council Fathers since many of them opposed its inclusion and they very nearly won the argument. It's probably fair to say that few of the bishops present at Nicaea left feeling entirely satisfied with the canon that had been established. It took some time, and lots of commentaries by people like Augustine and Chrysostom before people's disquiet really died down (or so it seems).

---

My comment to WG was that I thought that the Q had somewhat fallen out of favor in academia. Is this true?

BTW, did your boss give you a raise

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

My comment to WG was that I thought that the Q had somewhat fallen out of favor in academia. Is this true?

BTW, did your boss give you a raise

JoeT

---

If I did get a raise will you expect me to share it with you? If so then, no, no raise.

Q is the most widely accepted solution to the so-called synoptic problem. No, it hasn't fallen out of favor--though some have argued that Q ought to be supplemented by other letters of the alphabet, i.e. that there were additional source texts for the synoptic Gospels. As things stand, though, Q is pretty much taken for granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

If I did get a raise will you expect me to share it with you? If so then, no, no raise.

Q is the most widely accepted solution to the so-called synoptic problem. No, it hasn't fallen out of favor--though some have argued that Q ought to be supplemented by other letters of the alphabet, i.e., that there were additional source texts for the synoptic Gospels. As things stand, though, Q is pretty much taken for granted.

---

I was under the impression that it had fallen out of favor primarily because of the lack of Q substantiation in early writings. This lack of historical validation would seem to be a stumbling block for the proponents.

Either way, sorry for the diversion. But yes, always must one show proper appreciation to the Godfather. Guido is on his way over to make an offer you can’t refuse.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I was under the impression that it had fallen out of favor primarily because of the lack of Q substantiation in early writings. This lack of historical validation would seem to be a stumbling block for the proponents.

Either way, sorry for the diversion. But yes, always must one show proper appreciation to the Godfather. Guido is on his way over to make an offer you can’t refuse.

JoeT

---

Ah, trading in ethnic stereotypes, are we? Don't be surprised if you wake up with a horse's head in your bed.

There is considerable disagreement regarding the reconstructions of Q that have been proposed by various people, but not so much regarding the actual existence of Q. There is likewise disagreement concerning supposed references to Q in the writings of the earliest Fathers. But consider that the books of the NT didn't have titles when people like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch were writing, so it is often difficult to know which NT texts they had available to them. When we find a reference in their writings to a particular episode that appears in all three of the synoptic Gospels, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know to which Gospel they are referring unless they use language that is particular to one Gospel only. And it goes with this that we cannot say with any certainty whether in such cases they are referring to the episode as it is told in one of the synoptics or whether they are referring to some proto-Gospel such as Q. They didn't put things in quotation marks, and they certainly didn't refer to the books of the NT by the names by which we know them today (in fact, they didn't refer to them by name at all--the titles hadn't been asigned yet), so this involves a lot of sleuthing and often at least some speculation. It is important to keep in mind that they may not be referring to a written text at all but to the episode as it was told to them by one or more of the Apostles. Ignatius knew Peter, John, and Paul (at the very least--he may have known other Apostles as well), so he had sources available to him that aren't available to us. This is just one of the reasons his writings are so important. The same goes for 1Clement, since Clement was taught directly by both Paul and Peter. Polycarp was a student of John. Whether these guys were referring to Scriptures that are available to us today, or to some now lost Scriptures or even to accounts they heard dirctly from the Apostles themselves, is very difficult to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Ah, trading in ethnic stereotypes, are we? Don't be surprised if you wake up with a horse's head in your bed.

There is considerable disagreement regarding the reconstructions of Q that have been proposed by various people, but not so much regarding the actual existence of Q. There is likewise disagreement concerning supposed references to Q in the writings of the earliest Fathers. But consider that the books of the NT didn't have titles when people like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch were writing, so it is often difficult to know which NT texts they had available to them. When we find a reference in their writings to a particular episode that appears in all three of the synoptic Gospels, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know to which Gospel they are referring unless they use language that is particular to one Gospel only. And it goes with this that we cannot say with any certainty whether in such cases they are referring to the episode as it is told in one of the synoptics or whether they are refering to some proto-Gospel such as Q. They didn't put things in quotation marks, and they certainly didn't refer to the books of the NT by the names by which we know them today (in fact, they didn't refer to them by name at all--the titles hadn't been asigned yet), so this involves a lot of sleuthing and often at least some speculation. It is important to keep in mind that they may not be referring to a written text at all but to the episode as it was told to them by one or more of the Apostles. Ignatius knew Peter, John, and Paul (at the very least--he may have known other Apostles as well), so he had sources available to him that aren't available to us. This is just one of the reasons why his writings are so important. The same goes for 1Clement, since Clement was taught directly by both Paul and Peter. Polycarp was a student of John. Whether these guys were referring to Scriptures that are available to us today, or to some now lost Scriptures or even to accounts they heard dirctly from the Apostles themselves, is very difficult to say.

---

Ahhh sooo, in the way of putting a bottom line to the discussion on Q, it should be obvious to the casual reader that it would be right to say that Holy Scriptures are a product of the Church as opposed to the Church being the product of the ‘Book’. This would in turn lead us to the rightly held conclusion of the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures is special a case of Catholic Tradition.

There, now that wasn’t hard, was it? So, maybe this discussion on the Q wasn't so far outline after all.

Hey! I like horses. I’ve got 250 or so sitting out on the driveway now.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Ahhh sooo, in the way of putting a bottom line to the discussion on Q, it should be obvious to the casual reader that it would be right to say that Holy Scriptures are a product of the Church as opposed to the Church being the product of the ‘Book’. This would in turn lead us to the rightly held conclusion of the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures is special a case of Catholic Tradition.

---

That was what I was driving at, hoping Tom would admit that. It was the Church that pulled together all those mss. And letters and writings to make what is called the Bible.