"Bingo... The saying that the church gave us the Bible is backwards."
While what I said is true, especially concerning the Hebrew OT, the apostolic churches were complementary--& did help confirm FOR THE MOST PART--what Jesus & the apostles already taught as canon. Where it gets muddled is when man-made (not Scripture defined tradition) traditions (such as the fradulent Septuagint origin letter by Aristeas) are given priority over Scripture (in that case the Hebrew OT) & go beyond what is written.
Rom 3:1,2 What, then, is the advantage of being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. FIRST OF ALL, they HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED with the very oracles (words) of God.
Who entrusted it to them? God did. He spoke through the prophets & those associated with them, in being the caretakers of God's Word.
Heb 1:1 In the past God spoke to OUR FATHERS through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son...
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets.
Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, came to understand FROM THE SACRED BOOKS, ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF YHWH disclosed to the prophet Jeremiah, the years for the fulfilling of the desolation of Jerusalem were seventy in number.
I Cor 4:5,6 He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness & will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. Now, brethren, I have applied these things to myself & Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us THE MEANING OF THE SAYING: "NOTHING BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN." THEN you will not take pride in one man over {against} another.
Human reasoning & logic & humanistic speculation that extrapolates beyond what is written is just that: humanistic & not God inspired nor Divine revelation.
Because of the lack of communication in some parts of Christiandom (east & west & African, etc.), some areas did not readily accept certain books due to lack of circulation as in other areas & were slower to accept or spoke primarily Latin & Greek vs Hebrew.
But as my earlier posts show, there is a straightforward acknowledgement, just in Scripture alone, that authenticates the majority of the canon during the time of the apostles, while they were still alive. They themselves authenticated what is Scripture & what is not.
Then there was the issue of the Setuagint + deutero-canonical books vs the Hebrew OT (Tenakh). The letters back & forth between Augustine & Jerome is a good example later on. That is for another subject which I have done some indepth study on.
This, then brings into light the following issue.
"The canon of OT scripture is still identifiable by the 'watermark' of sensus plenior (which modern theologians don't want you to read). The NT writings and doctrines which are from God can be traced back to OT sources...The church, or bride of Christ, is hidden in the OT mystery. It can now be seen because the NT authors teach us to read the sensus plenior."
I am not one to subscribe to the hermeneutic theory of 'sensus plenior.' (SP) First of all, if one is going to use this term, one should define what the term actually means. I have seen several definitions of it & they are not the same.
It was originally coined by a Catholic priest & theologian around 1925-27 by the name of Andrea Fernández. It wasn't really discussed in Catholic circles until the 1940's & '50's. It was then popularized by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., an American Catholic priest & member of the Sulpician Fathers & a prominent biblical scholar, during the 1960's & '70's.
Orignally Andreas Fernandez defined it as tying together prophecies which had a literal meaning for the Jews at the time but had a fuller meaning for Christians as the prophecies were later fulfilled.
Raymond E Brown defined it as such: The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation” (SPSS, 92).
Reformation theology, on the Monergism website, defined it as: “Sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons & events in the OT are really 'types' & that the passages treating of those persons & events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow.
Raymond E Brown differs with the above definition, stating SP goes beyond just being a type but has a deeper meaning that the writer wasn't aware of; finding SP to be somewhere between the literal & typical senses, though more toward the literal.
Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at through that specific event in question.
To me there is much debate & confusion on what it is, which indicates to me that God is not the author of it & it is just a theory of man. Even Raymond E Brown changed his opinion of the importance of it nearer to the end of his life & conceded various discussions on this over the years bore this out.