RevAngel said:
If you need more than the fact the men wrote Bible as guided by God then you need to examine where your faith comes from. I am happy to know that what I have is the truth. A divinely inspired correct truth for teaching and equiping the Saints. If you see it any other way I can't explain it any other way.
So either you have no wish to answer the question, or you cannot answer it. If you're going to appeal to the idea of the Bible being the sole authority you need to come up with some justification as to
why it is the sole authority. Stating that "I need to examine where my faith comes from" does not cut it. You are saying that we should trust the authority of the Bible alone. You would likely cite 2 Timothy 3:16 in support of this statement.
There is nowhere in the Bible that defines a list of what is "scripture." The verse in 2 Timothy requires external justification and evidence to be a complete argument. The problem is, though, that when you look at the external evidence (that is, the history of how the Bible was created), it leads you to the ecumenical councils and the discussions/teachings of theologians in the first centuries of Christianity.
"Men wrote the Bible as guided by God"
is a product of the ecumenical councils and theologians in history. It is the vehicle through which the canon was established. Jerome was one of the first people to codify the New Testament canon. It was later re-stated at several synods and councils. For the Catholics, the canon was completely, dogmatically defined at the Council of Trent.
All Christians have faith that God is the "creator" of the Bible, so to speak. It was by his direction that it was created. But what we also know, from a completely objective, secular standpoint, is that what the Christians call "Tradition" was what compiled the Bible. There were debates and discussions throughout the centuries that led to the eventual formation of a canon.
For Christians, we know God is the entity behind the Bible's divine inspiration. We also know that it was a product of Tradition. Putting 2 and 2 together gives us: God, through men, used the Sacred Tradition of the Church to impart the Bible to humanity.
So, if it was Tradition that gave us the Bible, why does Tradition have to *stop* at the Bible? Is it because the practices it has produced are "against Scripture" or is it because it challenges your scriptural interpretations and your preconceived notions of the Bible's history?
If you are looking for a history lesson on how the Bible came to us at present ...I direct you to Foxe's Book of Martyrs. While the book is a bit one sided it is very detailed as it pertains to names and dates.
The Book of Martyrs only applies to the Reformation, really. And as you said, it's a bit biased (to say the least). The much larger, and considerably more unbiased, selection of sources discovered from the study of history point towards a human deliberation-based way of codifying the canon of the Bible. The objective evidence is in favor of Tradition, not the idea of Sola Scriptura.
I am not "unorthodox" it just seems to be more of a Catholic forum.
I never said you were. I am just telling you how the forum divides up its populace. If you adhere to the Nicene Creed (which, I might add, is also a product of the Tradition of the Church), you are considered an orthodox Christian by this forum and allowed to post in the Christians-Only sections. Otherwise, you are relegated to the sections open to all users.
This site isn't any more Catholic than it is Protestant. You just happened to be in a thread questioning Catholic doctrines and practices and posting what we perceive to be erroneous claims/accusations, so of course you will be met with a response or two.