"2. The church assembles the bible, using as the primary criteria for what constitutes the bible that which corresponds to its traditions."
The Church assembled the Bible all right, but it wasn't the Catholic Church, for there was no such thing for three hundred years.
The church in the wilderness, the body of Christ believers, agreed by the Holy Spirit what books were valid, and that church assembled the Bible which has been preserved by God, as he promised in Psalm 12, verse 7, unto the final English version of 1611, as well as vernacualr versions in many other languages.
God is true and all men liars.
God is true and all men liars.
So we should believe you that God's eternal plan was to wait 1,611 years to finally be able to perfect His Bible?
LOL
SD
>> The Church assembled the Bible all right, but it wasn't the Catholic Church, for there was no such thing for three hundred years. <<
You are flat-out wrong.
The first-century Apostle's Creed states that "We believe in... one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." But it's not the word "catholic" which establishes that it refers to the Catholic church; it's the word "apostolic." By that, they meant that the Church consisted of those communities which recognized the authorities of the bishops, who were appointed by the apostles and their successors. Several first-century apologists argued against heresies by pointing not to the biblical canon (since it had not been established), but to the fact that heretics were not speaking with the authority granted to them by the college of bishops.
During the first three centuries, regional gatherings of bishops would regularly convene to discuss doctrinal issues, and their word was authoritative. Not all such gatherings agreed on which books were scriptural, as Martin Luther correctly pointed out when he claimed that seven New Testament books were in less common usage then certain books which were not part of the canon, such as the Didache.
When the Emporer Constantine converted to Christianity, he recognized the potential danger of the power of the Roman government being used as an alternative source of power to the Catholic bishops. Thus, he invited all the bishops of the world to Nicea, centrally located near Rome for convenience, but not IN Rome, for as not to imply that its authority was granted it by the Empire. At that council, it was clarified that the Bishop of Rome spoke for the entirety of the Catholic Church, and any bishop who opposes him is to be regarded as corrupted.
This was merely a formalization, a clarification, of a doctrine which had been held by tradition all along. Long before Constantine, several bishops had written to each other, asserting that they were correct because the Bishop of Rome had agreed with them. Also, the assertions of the Council of Nicea would have been greeted with immediate derision, if it was believed to have been innovating new doctrine. There was none, although many bishops were not able to attend.
The assertion that this Council of Nicea represented a takeover of the church by Rome is not supported by history. Quite the opposite.
Many successive emporers claimed to be Catholic, and tried to force the Bishops of Rome to issue false doctrine. They persistently failed, with one historically debatable exception: that of Honorius. He was thrown into prison, and the emporer produced a letter, claiming that it was written by Honorius, and asserting a very minor theological inaccuracy, which was anathematized by Honorius' successors. (This does not contradict the claim of Papal infallibility since Honorius was not issuing it from the Throne of St. Peter.) Many, many Popes surrendered their lives, refusing to be influenced by Rome.
The Bishop of Rome refused to dwell in Rome, to prevent the appearance that his authority was vested in the Empire. Rather, he dwelled in what became Vatican City, which is not in Rome, but across the Tiber. He is said to be in exile, awaiting the destruction of the Harlot Babylon. The Vatican City to this date, is outside Rome, and, legally, outside even Italy.