[roamer_1]

Of course, but the Early Christians had a question mark: what exactly IS God-breathed? They knew the Mat, Mrk, Luke and Jhn were, but what about the other 80 gospels in Circulation? What about the Acts of Paul and Theda? What about the Protoevangelium? What of the Gospel of Thomas?

Yet here we are, even yet, with multiple canons.

I have a different approach to authoritative moves such as "canon," so this is not a good argument to use with me. I accept as canon what everyone accepts (that being the most refined), but not because some authority ordains it is so, but rather, because it is the most agreed upon.

That leaves me in the Protestant Bible, but that does not suppose that it is the ONLY books that are relevant or even God Breathed. I look for the signature of His Prophecy in extant psuedapigraphal books, and consider them on that alone, along with the efficacy of the current extant text against an assumed original.

In that, I find canon (authorized works) to be instructive, and I prove other texts against them, but I do not discount other books strictly because someone told me they are wrongly attributed.

Tradition is the tool the Holy Spirt used to bring together the truly inspired works into one canon.

If that were true, then there would be *no* dispute.

The standard used by the Holy SPirit through the councils was simple: is it in tradition, is it in the orthdox faith? And that's what tool the Spirit used to collect the canon.

Yet the same mechanism was used by Judah - and it failed miserably. And the official Hebraic scribal authority is far more defined than anything noted in the New Covenant. Their mistake? Tradition held to the same level of authority as the Word. Them with eyes, Let them see.

Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture

I could not disagree more emphatically.

[Cronos]

Yet here we are, even yet, with multiple canons.

Not really -- just two: incl Apocrypha or not. No one argues that the Acts of Paul and Theda should be canon anymore.

[Cronos]

I have a different approach to authoritative moves such as "canon," so this is not a good argument to use with me. I accept as canon what everyone accepts (that being the most refined), but not because some authority ordains it is so, but rather, because it is the most agreed upon.

And yet, that was an argument used in the councils. Those "authorities" you refer to are none other than the authority of the community of believers, the Church as a whole.

If you lived in Bahrain in the 2nd century, going by that definition one would probably attest to the Gospel of Thomas as inspired canon. But it was rejected by The Church as a whole -- local churches may err but the entire communion of believers, The Church does not err (and to clarify, my usage of The Church indicates the community of believers, the common priesthood of believers, not just the magisterium or some council of bishops or presbyters/priests)

I look for the signature of His Prophecy in extant psuedapigraphal books, and consider them on that alone, along with the efficacy of the current extant text against an assumed original. Ok -- then why not include Maccabbees which is mostly historical or the Didache which, written in 70 AD approx is a Syriac manual, or the Acts of Paul and Theda which do not contradict (to my knowledge) what we consider canon?

There is truly no dispute -- why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?

[Cronos]

Yet the same mechanism was used by Judah - and it failed miserably. Why do you say that?

If you say that tradition failed, than you say that the tool usd to collect the canon failed