Personal remarks in bolded blue. Abbreviations: OT= Old Testament, NT= New Testament, A.D.

= Anno Domini (Latin “in the Year of the Lord”)

For this discussion, scriptures are from the King James Version, unless otherwise marked.

The Books of the Bible and The Church

_____________________________Part 1 The Bible____________________________________
I am going to attempt to address the seeming tension between the following two scripture verses
written by Paul in his letters to Timothy:

2Timothy 3:16-17

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 perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works. Paul is saying all scripture is God-breathed and useful for correction
and that all of the Septuagint (Greek OT) is God-breathed. Note: Paul is not talking about the NT because it didn’t even
exist at that point.

1Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of
God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. Is Paul saying it is
instead the Church and not the Bible that we should be leaning on for the deposit of faith and
morals? Therein lies the tension. As with many Bible verses, I personally think that there really is no
tension, there really is no contradiction, instead it is a BOTH/AND approach that works best to what
is the truth of faith and morals.

First, I firmly believe that the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God, and can be used just as Paul says
in Paul’s 2nd letter to Timothy. So let’s repeat this conundrum one more time to see if I have it straight:

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for
training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good
work. (NAB) So again, if we were to stop right there then it would be a “drop the mic” moment, a clear
slam dunk, directly from the Bible...saying clearly and definitively that the Bible is the sole authority as
the Bible clearly says that it can solely interpret itself. Hmm...guess that means we don’t need the Church
and its teachings.

But oops, wait just one moment...there it was again in my head, that nagging little unsettling verse in the
1st letter from Paul to Timothy and it says what again?
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of
the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (NAB)

I want to start the examination of the Bible and the Church by saying that when Jesus came to earth
He did not commit His saving doctrine to pages nor did Jesus write a book. If we are honest with
ourselves we know that, at this point in time, it was an oral culture and everything was transmitted by
speaking, hearing and remembering. People in those times were memorizing great amounts of
scripture (OT) from a collection of scrolls as a normal part of growing up.
2Timothy 2:2
2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful
men, who shall be fit to teach others also. This is what we would call “handed down” or “handed on”
or what the Church calls oral tradition.

2Thessalonians 2:15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by
word, or our epistle. Here is Paul again speaking of the oral traditions. I believe this is also what Paul
is speaking about in the following verses to Timothy who was in Ephesus and Titus in Crete:
2 Timothy 1:14, 2: 2, 3:14-16, 4:1-5 and Titus 1: 5-9

1 Corinthians 15:3-4
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to
the scriptures: And here we see the gospel being orally handed down to the Church at Corinth.

So when the apostles go forth to preach, they have two things: The Greek Septuagint (OT) & oral
doctrine. P.S. There is a traditional story that Matthew the tax collector may have chronicled notes while
Jesus was teaching and preaching and assembled those notes and gave each of the twelve a copy of his
gospel.

Ephesians 1:13
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom
also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, This verse talks about a
community that heard the gospel spread by the apostles and their disciples. This was all done orally.
I believe that this “sealed with the Holy Spirit” is what happened at Pentecost and is a confirmation of
baptism, but that is another study entirely.

Now let’s look at the origins of the Bible, before we look at the beginnings of the Church.

First, on the dating of the gospels:

I looked into the question regarding Gospel dating, specifically because naysayers had said that Jesus'
prediction of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, recorded in the Gospels, (Mark 13:1-2) was not a
true prophecy because they say that the Gospels were written after the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
So off I went to research the truth.

Here's a very general timeline that makes sense to me: It starts with the fact that historians do know that
Nero had the fire set to burn Rome in July of A.D. 64 and he used it to blame the Christians.
Now we also know that Peter & Paul were killed in Rome in that same year A.D. 64 during the Nero
persecutions. However, Luke does not mention their deaths in Acts, as he did the killing of Stephen and
the Apostle James. So that tells me Acts and Luke's gospel were both written before A.D. 65 or even A.D.
64. A majority of scholars believe Luke's gospel used both Mark and Matthew as source material, so that
means both Matthew & Mark were written prior to, let's say A.D. 65. That is at least 5 yrs prior to the A.D.
70 date of the temple destruction. Note: John’s gospel is thought of to be written sometime around A.D. 90.

Second, on the compiling of the canon: (From Greek “Kanon” meaning standard or rule. What we think of as the list of books)
This subject is exhaustive and will make your head implode. However, if I may, I would like to discuss
what I have found in my research in a general sense and then get very historically specific as I go along:

In all, there were three main qualities used by the early Church in the vetting of the books to be included
in the compilation of the Bible
1) Apostolicity (Did an apostle write the book or did it have apostolic authority backing it?)
2) Catholicity (Was a particular book read during the Mass? The Mass was the form of early Christian Sunday worship in the majority of
churches founded by the apostles, so this spoke to the idea of a writing being universal (that is what catholic means) among the early church)
3) Orthodoxy. (Did it conform to the teachings of Jesus traditionally and faithfully passed on by His apostles?

The Bishops & Pope (Bishop of Rome) of the Church formed councils to examine what was being read
during the liturgies in the various major communities founded by the apostles i.e. Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem and minor ones such as Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi and more.

Note: When I use the word “Church” it is the original, established by Jesus. We will get into the actual name of this Church as we get deeper.

What historians are calling the first written list of both the OT & NT books came from the mind and
writings of Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) who was the most prominent theologian of the
fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. His list of canonical books was published as
part of his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D 367. Athanasius listed 39 OT and 27 NT books.

Note: Took me about an hour to number them because of the way he named them and had written about them...you will see this numbering of the
books exercise later on below.

So at this point we have the Protestant canon of 66 books, but hold on just one moment...It must also be
noted that the compilation of the books included in the Biblical canon were not finished based just on
Athanasius’s opinion. There was much more work to be done and the heavy lifting was done during the
upcoming Councils of the Church, as noted below.
The Church Councils that approved and ratified a compilation of Holy Spirit inspired Books numbering 73
(46 OT Books and 27 NT Books) were the following Councils of Bishops, Cardinals, along with the
presiding Bishop of Rome (Pope) at the time:
Council of Rome in A.D. 382
Council of Hippo in A.D. 393
Council of Carthage in A.D. 397
Council of Carthage in A.D. 419
Council of Florence in 1442
Council of Trent in 1546

*Note: the list of books given by the various Councils included those called Deuterocanonical books. This list of 73 is the same as we have them
today. Some of the Books were later combined or titled differently which is why the list may look a little unfamiliar when compared to a modern
Bible. (For example, I found 2 books called the Paralipomenon, which are 1 Chronicles & 2 Chronicles)

All Christians accepted these 73 books listed and approved by the Church Councils for over
1,000 years, including notables Augustine, Jerome, John Wycliffe and Johannes Hus.
The first printed copy of the Bible in 1455 was The Gutenberg Bible & had all 73 books in it.
So too, believe it or not, did the original 1611 King James Bible. There were actually 80 total
Books originally listed in the original Table of Contents of the 1611 King James. (39 OT
Books, 14 Apocrypha Books and 27 NT Books) Some of those 80 books were combined or
titled differently and the result was 73 total books given during each of the Councils of the
Church.

Here below is a copy of the image of the original Table of Contents taken of the original 1611
King James Bible Table of Contents that historians keep in a museum.
I believe there were over 137 books that were looked at and of those, 93 were seriously considered by the
original Church. If I recall properly the Orthodox Church’s members totalling 260 Million have 81 books
that they consider Holy Spirit inspired, the Catholic Church’s members totalling 1.3 Billion have 73 books
and the Protestants totalling 800 Million have 66 books.

Note: Go to the very end to see that there were at least another 44 works looked at, on top of the 93 to add up to that 137 I mentioned above.
I have no doubt that one would never exhaust the study in this area.

So continuing to look for evidence of the list of the books of the Bible, I found the following:
The earliest writings of the Old Testament scripture were likely composed in the 10th century B.C. and on
the other hand, the writing of New Testament scripture continued until the first century A.D., when
revelation was/is considered complete.
Also found out that seven books of the Bible, all in the Old Testament, are accepted by Catholics and
Eastern Orthodox, but are not accepted by Jews or Protestants. These include 1 and 2 Maccabees,
Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books
are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics and the Orthodox and called Apocryphal by Jews and
Protestants. These were the last books of the Old Testament written, composed in the last two centuries
B.C.

The version of the Bible (the OT scrolls) in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX,
for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This
version of the Bible included the seven books called the Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of
the Old Testament used and quoted by Jesus as well as the New Testament authors and by Christians
during the first century A.D. The early Church continued to accept the books of the LXX version, although
some debate about these books continued through the 5th century. I will investigate these seven later.

There were 5 main sects of Jews at the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans & the Jews of
the Diaspora) and before the time of Jesus they did not all agree on a canon of the Hebrew Scriptures,
some believed only 39 were inspired and some 46. After the first few centuries after Christ came, the
Jewish Rabbis saw that they needed to separate themselves from the growing Christian sect and decided
to reject the 7 books that the Christians had in their Septuagint and agreed upon 39 books in the OT.

The Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Septuagint have slightly different wording of the same passages so
it is possible in most cases to tell which version it was that Jesus and the apostles were quoting. In fact,
what we find is that 90% to 95% of the time when the NT quotes from the OT, we find that the quotes are
taken from the Septuagint. Of the approximate 330 OT quotes found in the NT, 300 are from the Greek
Septuagint.

Here are just two examples to illustrate:

In Genesis 46:27 in the Hebrew OT it says that Joseph brings 70 members of his family into Egypt. In the
Greek OT (Septuagint) that same passage says Joseph brings 75 members of his family into Egypt. When
it is quoted in the NT in Acts 7:14, we see Stephen refers to this account and tells us that Joseph brought
75 members into Egypt.

The second example is Isaiah 7:14 where the Hebrew Scripture prophesied that a young woman will be
with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Note: The Hebrew word for young woman is
“almah” and it means a young woman of child bearing age. In the Greek OT Septuagint that same
passage says that the virgin will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Then in the
NT in Matthew 1:23 it quotes from the OT and says that Jesus’ birth has fulfilled the prophecy by saying
that the virgin will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Note: The Greek word
used here is “parthenos'' which means a virgin.

My point is that it was the Greek Septuagint that had 46 OT writings that was the predominantly quoted
version in Jesus’ time. So to repeat a conclusion mentioned before...these 46 plus the 27 of the NT make
up the canon of the Bible established as inspired by the Holy Spirit and compiled as such by the Catholic
Church with the main criteria of the writings as follows:

Must be Apostolic. (written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle)

Must have a consensus and frequency of use by the Bishops in the liturgical worship of God. (The Mass)
Must affirm the question, “Does it contain authentic and correct teachings of Jesus and the Apostles?”

By A.D. 48, and the beginning of the deaths of the apostles, people began to be concerned about writing
things down. Also, by the middle of the 300’s, the gnostic forgeries were causing confusion, so the
Council of Rome (A.D. 382) called for a compilation of the writings to be put into the common (vulgar)
language of the people (Latin). This became the Latin Vulgate. Pope Damasus appointed St Jerome (a
renowned linguist) to translate the Septuagint (Greek) Hebrew & Aramaic texts.
The word “bible” (book) was coined by St Jerome.

The final decision on the list of Bible writings (canon of books) was at the Council of Carthage (397 AD).
To expand on how the Church determined which writings, it was called “Lex Orandi Lex Credendi” in
Latin or “What we pray is what we believe” in English. The Church had the daily Mass (mentioned in Acts
2:42,46) and those writings taken from what the Christians prayed during Mass, became the major player
for what became the approved writings for the final library of books or Table of Contents of what we know
today as the Bible.

The compilation of the books of the Bible was completed approx. 405 AD and translated by the Church
into languages around the world. In 700 AD, a monk named Venable Bede translated it into an obscure
“AngloSaxon” language, which later became English.

Another additional interesting fact:

A) Early Church father Origen wrote about a list of New Testament Books in his Homiliae on Josuam 7.1,
wherein Origen, in approx A.D. 250, listed 27 New Testament books, the same number and books all
Christians have currently in their Bibles.
(Source: The "Ecclesiastical History" by the historian Eusebius of Cæsarea A.D. 260 - 341 who collected hundreds of Origen’s letters)

I will now show the numbering of the first written list of both the OT & NT books that Athanasius
wrote about. Then we will take a look at the controversy of the 7 Deuterocanonical, (2nd canon or
“extra” books) and bring in what the various early Church Fathers had to say.

Below is that letter (epistle) of Athanasius. The large bolded numbers are my attempt to count the books of
his list.

From his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.

Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth
Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically
what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church.

...1. They have fabricated books which they call books of tables , in which they show stars, to which
they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double
reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and
contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts
concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.

...2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine
Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians 2 Corinthians 11:3, some
few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men,
and should henceforth read other books — those called apocryphal— led astray by the similarity of their
names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of
matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the
pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand
Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with
the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me
also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before
you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any
one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has
continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed
down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being
1, then Exodus 2, next Leviticus 3, after that Numbers 4, and then
as follows. The first is Genesis
Deuteronomy 5. Following these there is Joshua 6,the son of Nun, then Judges 7, then Ruth 8. And
again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book 9 & 10
(Catholic’s First Book of Samuel & Second Book of Samuel), and so likewise the third and fourth
as one book. 11 & 12 (Catholic’s First Book of Kings & Second Book of Kings) And again, the
first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. 13 & 14 (Catholic’s First Book of
Chronicles & Second Book of Chronicles) Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book.
15 & 16 (Catholic’s Book of Ezra & Book of Nehemiah) After these there is the book of Psalms
17, then the Proverbs 18, next Ecclesiastes 19, and the Song of Songs 20. Job follows 21, then the
Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book 22 - 33. Then Isaiah, one book 34, then Jeremiah
35 with Baruch 36, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book 37; afterwards, Ezekiel 38 and Daniel
39, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels,
according to Matthew 1, Mark 2 , Luke 3 , and John 4. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles 5 and
Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one 6 ; of Peter, two 7 & 8; of John, three 9,10 &
11; after these, one of Jude 12. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order.
The first, to the Romans 13; then two to the Corinthians 14 & 15; after these, to the Galatians
16; next, to the Ephesians 17; then to the Philippians 18; then to the Colossians 19; after these,
two to the Thessalonians 20 & 21, and that to the Hebrews 22; and again, two to Timothy 23 &
24; one to Titus 25; and lastly, that to Philemon 26. And besides, the Revelation of John 27.
6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they
contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him
take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'You err,
not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are
they that testify of Me Matthew 22:29; John 5:39.'

In his opinion, Athanasius then writes about books that, up to that point in time, have been
approved by the Church Fathers to be worthy of reading & lived, but have not been accepted
yet by the entire Church, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides
these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly
join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, (Catholic’s
Book of Wisdom) and the Wisdom of Sirach, (Catholic’s Book of Sirach) , and Esther, (Catholic’s
Book of Esther) and Judith, (Catholic’s Book of Judith) and Tobit, (Catholic’s Book of Tobit, of
which 5 Dead Sea scrolls were found) and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, (This
is what is called the Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and is dated from Mid to
late 2nd century, from the Dead Sea Scrolls’ finding) and the Shepherd. (This is what is called
The Shepherd of Hermas written in Rome around the first half of the 1st century...Church
Father Irenaeus considered it part of the canon of scripture) But the former, my brethren, are
included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal
writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon
them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they
may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Source. Translated by R. Payne-Smith. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo,
NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm>.

Note: There are those who claim that Catholics took away 14 Books from the Biblical Canon, but this claim is erroneous and I have done a
separate paper debunking this claim.
Jerome (A.D. 347 -420), the priest, linguist, historian and theologian, whom I spoke about
earlier, gave us the translation of the Bible into Latin, as most of the world spoke the
language of the conquering Romans, It was called The Vulgate and it originally excluded the
Deuterocanonical (2nd canon) books, but Augustine convinced him to include them in the
Latin Vulgate; Tobit, Judith, Additions to the Book of Esther, (added to the book of Esther in
Catholic Bibles) The Wisdom of Solomon (Book of Wisdom in Catholic Bibles) Ecclesiasticus
(Book of Sirach in Catholic Bibles) Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, (added to the book of
Baruch in Catholic Bibles) The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men,
(added to the book of Daniel in Catholic Bibles) Susanna, (added to the book of Daniel in
Catholic Bibles) Bel and the Dragon, (added to the book of Daniel in Catholic Bibles) 1
Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.

Note: Some believe a Jewish Council called the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD and it excluded the Deuterocanonical books because they were not
originally written in Hebrew. However, in 1947, we began discovering the Dead Sea scrolls which contained some of the Deuterocanonical books
written in Hebrew. Additionally, historians now believe the Council of Jamnia never happened. It is a myth proposed by a German Jewish
historian named Heinrich Graetz who took this idea from the non scriptural Jewish writings from the Mishnah Yadayim 3:5 where 6 Rabbis were
discussing and disagreed on whether 2 books were to be included in the Jewish canon (list of scrolls/books). These writings were the Song of
Songs and Ecclesiastes. There was no council or synod and it was only 2 books and only 6 Rabbis. It was merely a debate that shows dissention
only, not an adopted finalized canon (list). There actually was no closed canon (list) of the Jewish scriptures at the end of the first century as
some thought it to be 22 books, some 24 books (39 if numbered the way we do now) and some 94 books.

Interesting fact: The first Bible versification (adding verse #s) was of the Hebrew OT by Jewish Rabbi Isaac Nathan ben Kalonymus (aka Nathan)
in 1448. Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus) copied Nathan's OT versification and added NT versification to his Latin Vulgate (NT in 1551, complete
Bible in 1555). The first English New Testament to use the verse divisions was a 1557 translation by William Whittingham. The Geneva Bible
(1560) was the first complete English Bible to be divided into chapters and verses.

Are the 7 Deuterocanonicals books Holy Spirit inspired and worthy to be included in the canon?

Here are just 8 of the over 80 examples I found where the New Testament writers quote from the
Deuterocanonical books, so I find that this fact would give some credence to their inclusion:
Mt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 –
lay up your treasure.
Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is the same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without
a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven
and earth.
Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Luke 13:29 – Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
John 1:3 – all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
I can also continue by showing just some of what I found from patristic (Church Fathers) quotations from
each of the deuterocanonical books, showing strong reason why they should be included in the list of the
Biblical canon. You will notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals.
(those scrolls/books included in the Hebrew scriptures called the Tanakh or the Mikra) To repeat, the
deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though
there had been some discussion about whether they should be. Also included are the earliest official lists
of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full.
When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books
found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is
important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is
also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and
2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are
named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these
designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

The Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was
foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil
counsel against themselves’ [Isaiah 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is
displeasing to us’ [Wisdom 2:12]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome
"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who
shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wisdom 12:12]"
(Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable
in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Peter 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tobit 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you
subject to one another [1 Peter. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Peter 2:12],
and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is
blasphemed [Isaiah 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the
fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed
up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matthew 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man
sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon
the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you
seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Daniel 13:56].

You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to
light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and
to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Daniel
13:52, citing Exodus 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Hippolytus
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the
front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted
order in their writings. . . . [
"We ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss
of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing
that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate
Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Daniel 13] is not in the Protestant
Bible).

Cyprian of Carthage
"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him,
"Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering
. . ."’ [Genesis 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of
men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wisdom 3:4]. Of this same thing in the
Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for
righteousness’ [1 Maccabees 2:52; see James 2:21–23]"

"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then
worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship
nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Daniel 14:5]" (Daniel 14 is not in the
Protestant Bible).

St. Augustine
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is
contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges;
one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . .
[T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the
two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one
book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is
entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’
because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus
Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is
deservedly accredited to them" (From Augustine’s Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Maccabees 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But
even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is
clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at
his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

Interesting fact: In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical
books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and
the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for
example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of
the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit by cooperating with God’s grace).
Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they
did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.

Conclusion: In my opinion, there is a strong case for 73 being the correct canonical books.
39 Jewish Scriptures + 7 Deuterocanonical books + 27 New Testament Books = 73
This concludes my look at the Bible. Next is my look at the Church
_________________________________Part 2 The Church________________________________________
Now that we have talked about the formation of the Bible and the number of books, we must talk about
something that predates much of the Bible and that is the Church established by Jesus Christ.
We need to talk about the fact that the Bible, the inerrant word of God, was written by men who were
inspired by the Holy Spirit to scribe the words that God wants us to read, hear and know, and this Bible
did not just fall from the sky as a bound book but instead was given to us by the Church that was already
in existence prior to the writings of the New Testament scriptures.

In my mind, one of the most important things necessary to understand the Holy Scriptures is a
combination of humility, charity (love) and sanctity. (holiness) That is why given all the approximate 130+
various writings that were floating around in the first few centuries, there had to be an institution or entity
that had the authority, as shown previously, to examine the veracity and verisimilitude of those writings
and to compile the Table of Contents, so to speak. To this end we must look at the Church and the Early
Church Fathers for guidance in the establishment of the canon and to eventually also understand the oft
difficult text.

On the study of the Church, I’d like to start with what a friend said to me once, “The first believers were
“Judean-Christians” My answer was both “Yes” and “No”. Yes, If that refers to Jewish converts to the
belief of Jesus Christ, as the Messiah. And No, because before the word “Christian” was ever used at the
beginning, believers were called followers of “The Way”. (Acts Ch 9 Vs 2 & Acts Ch 24 Vs 14)

However there is so much more to the historical journey and what believers in Jesus were called as time
progressed. So first, when were the first believers called “Christians”? Here are 2 sources:

1) Acts Ch 11 Vs 19-30 written around A.D. 80 - 90

19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as
Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the
Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth
Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of
heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they
assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first
in Antioch.
2) Early Church Father and historian Eusebius of Caesarea who lived circa A.D. 265 - 340 wrote this in
his 10 volume work in Book on Church History in Book #1

“But although it is clear that we are new and that this new name of Christians has really but recently been
known among all nations, nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion, have not been
lately invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural
understanding of divinely favored men of old. That this is so we shall show in the following way.”

So how did the Jewish believers continue the progression from “Jews” to “The Way” to “Christian” to
what my research is telling me, that eventually they appear to be “Catholic” in name?

As mentioned above in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ became known as
"Christians" (Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church
herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church". That’s because there was
only one! In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival
claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

However, very early on in post-apostolic times, it looks to me that the Church did acquire a proper name,
and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to
form. Bear with me as I will try to lay out my research to that very claim. I did find that the name that the
Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she
has been known ever since, the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it
was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood
exactly what was meant by the name when it was written. Tradition has it that Christians were called
Catholics since approx A.D. 90, a nickname by Clement, who was the third Pope (Bishop of Rome)
following Peter, in order to teach pagans who worshipped multiple gods that there was one God over all.

Then around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to
Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early
bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna, (today it is Izmir in modern Turkey) he made
the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there
is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely
begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Another early instance of the word “Catholic” appears in the oldest written account we possess outside
the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop
of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. Polycarp was a disciple of the
apostle John just as John was a disciple of Jesus. Like Ignatius, Polycarp suffered the martyr’s death in a
coliseum in A.D. 155. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, written at the time of Polycarp’s death, we read, “The
Church of God that sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God that sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the
dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place” (Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, preface).

Later in the same book it says that “Polycarp had finished his prayer, in which he “remembered all who
had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown and the
whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” They then gave him up to wild beasts, fire, and, finally, the
sword. The epistle then concludes: “Now with the apostles and all the just, [Polycarp] is glorifying God
and the Father Almighty, and he is blessing our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, and the
Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world” .

So we see that early in the second century, Christians regularly use the word “catholic” as an established
description of the Church. It being a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak
of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world." The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and
when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring
to the one Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or
splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the one Catholic Church.

So as far as I can tell in my reading the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first
ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year A.D. 325, the bishops of that
council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of
Nicea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which
formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true
Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first
ecumenical council of the Church, known as Vatican Council II in the 1960’s.

And looking back, it was back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 378 - 444) wrote,
"Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call
their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic
Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our
Lord Jesus Christ" (Catecheses, xviii, 26).
The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of
Christ has in no way been changed, as far as I can tell.

All this is fine and good about the history of the Church’s development but let’s go back a bit further in
time and see when and where this Church was instituted, by whom and how does it have any authority
and see what the Bible says about it and perhaps more about what the early Church Fathers had to say
about all this.

Most Christians look at Pentecost in Acts 2 as the birthing of the Church, however it is my belief that the
bricks were actually started with Luke 6/Matt 4 when the apostles were selected and continued with Luke
9/Matt 10 when the apostles were given their mission, Luke 10 when the 72 were given their mission, Luke
22/John 6 when the Eucharist became the official Lord's Day sacrificial form of worship for the Christians,
Matt 16 when Peter was given the authority as the holder of the keys of the kingdom and the leader of
Christ's church, all preceding up to Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles at Pentecost.

Matthew 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men
say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of
the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Whew, a lot going on in the scripture above. First Jesus takes the apostles to Caesarea Philippi where
there was an enormous 500 foot long, 100 feet high rock that housed carved out grottos where the
pagans displayed and worshiped idols of the gods, especially their god Pan. Here Herod had built a
temple to Caesar Augustus atop the massive rock. At the rock base was a gaping cavern referred to by
the pagans as the “gates of hell”, as they believed it was the entrance to the underworld.
Standing before this “temple” built to the “divine Caesar”, Jesus revealed God’s plan to build his new
“temple”, the Church, to the true God. So there was a heavy significance to what Jesus was about
to do. It seems to me that here at Caesarea Philippi is where the Church began to acquire its hierarchical
structure…its authority. After Jesus asks the apostles, in general, who do the people say that Jesus is,
Jesus then asks “But whom say ye that I am?” And it is Peter who answers, “Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God.” Jesus then says that it is His Father that has revealed this to Peter. And then what
comes next is, to me, the all important establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ, as Jesus says to
Peter, 18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Probably the 2 most debated verses in all of scripture centering around the meaning of the word “rock”.
It is vitally important to answer the question, Did Jesus establish a visible church to continue His work?
But without getting into a deep discussion here, let me just say that Peter is given a new name, which in
Scripture denotes a change in status or position. Jesus spoke Aramaic and gave Simon the Aramaic
name Kepha (Rock) which is “Petra” in Greek and “Peter” in English. The Greek “petra” is feminine so
the masculine “Petros” was adopted in the Greek NT.

So Jesus would have actually said this “Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha, I will build my church”.
Jesus is the builder and Peter is the rock foundation.

After establishing Peter as the “Rock”, Jesus then promises to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom of
Heaven”. This is a reference to the steward’s keys in Isaiah 22. The Davidic throne had been vacant since
the Babylonian captivity (B.C. 586). The archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that her Son Jesus would
be given “the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:42). As Jesus, the new King of Israel, re-established the
Davidic throne he appointed Peter to the office of royal steward to rule “over the house” of the king.

Keys represent exclusive dominion and this authority was granted to Peter alone. The office of royal
steward was successive in Israel. Familiar with their history, the Jews certainly understand that the office
of Peter would be filled by successors, as was the royal steward’s office in Judah. The steward may die,
but the office itself continues.

As the steward of Christ’s kingdom, Peter is given the authority to bind and to loose. As I found out, the
Jewish Rabbis considered binding and loosing the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office.
These powers Christ now transferred to his apostles; the first, here to Peter. Jesus also appoints Peter
the shepherd of his sheep with the universal Church in view here in John Chapter 21:

John 21:15-17
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than
these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea,
Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he
said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou
knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The Jews would have understood, according to contemporary usage, that the words “feed” and “tend”
meant to teach, govern, and rule. St. Augustine (A.D. 354 - 430) comments, “The succession of priests
keeps me [in the Catholic Church], beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord,
after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.”
St. John, writing long after Peter’s death, reminds Christians of Peter’s singular status in Chapter 21.

The apostles would not live forever, so how could Jesus say “make disciples of all nations” and also that
He (Jesus) would be with them “...always, to the very end of the age”? Even with the Holy Spirit present,
that could only happen by the apostles appointing others to follow them with the authority given to them
by Jesus Himself.
You can see the development of this succession of authority in a letter from Clement of Rome in A.D. 90
that he sent to the Church in Corinth. The Church in Corinth was talking about ousting their bishop, their
presbyters (elders/priests) and their deacons and Clement stepped in. Clement was in the line of
succession given from Jesus to Peter and held that primary authority that continues to the present time:

Letter from Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth: Chapter XLII. The order of ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so from God. Christ
therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way,
according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the
kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours],
having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any
new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a
certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

Chap. XLIV. The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate.
For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers]
already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should
succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent
men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable,
and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the
ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.
Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure
[from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have
removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Contents of this letter of Clement backs up what Paul writes to Timothy and to Titus about the deposit of
faith, the traditions , the teachings of Christ being passed on by the authority given to the apostles and to
the bishop etc., that then later succeeded the apostles...all starting with the “Great Commission” from
Jesus to the apostles.

Matthew 28: 18 - 20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Jesus commands then gives the apostles the authority to
promote the gospel and baptize others into a new life.

And Jesus passed on the authority to forgive sins in His name to the apostles and their successors:
John 20: 21 - 23
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained. This is a handing down of authority by Jesus to the apostles and to their successors.

So what did the early Church Fathers say about the Church successive hierarchy that was passed down?
Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, A.D. 200.
Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was
Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign
of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the
Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189],
until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were
more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions
granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he
had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromaties 7:17:107:3, aft. AD 202.

From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is
one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in
substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as
it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, – or rather, from the one
covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, – those already chosen,
those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.
St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5, AD 251.

St. Cyprian A.D. 251 There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter
by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood
besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.
How about that one for a no nonsense thought on the makeup of the early Church!

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Bishop of Jerusalem & Doctor of the Church, Catechetical Lectures 18:23, AD 350.
[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the
earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the
knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings
every race of men into subjection to godliness . . .

St. Augustine, The True Religion 7:12, AD 390.

We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which
is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the
adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her
nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which
the whole world employs in her regard.

St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6, AD 397.
If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him
when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the
Catholic Church did not move me to do so.

Lactantius, (240 -320) an advisor to Constantine said this, “When men are called Phrygians, or Novatians,
or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or by any other name, they cease to be Christians; for
they have lost Christ's Name, and clothe themselves in human and foreign titles. It is the Catholic Church
alone which retains the true worship."
Epiphanius (310 -403) was a bishop in Cyprus and considered a church father by both Orthodox and
Catholics) and he said this, "We never heard of Petrines, or Paulines, or Bartholomeans, or Thaddeans,
but from the first there was one preaching of all the Apostles, not preaching themselves, but Christ Jesus
the Lord. Wherefore also all gave one name to the Church, not their own, but that of their Lord Jesus
Christ, since they began to be called Christians first at Antioch; which is the Sole Catholic Church,
having nought else but Christ's, being a Church of Christians; not of Christs, but of Christians, He being
One, they from that One being called Christians. None, but this Church and her preachers, are of this
character, as is shown by their own epithets, Manicheans, and Simonians, and Valentinians, and
Ebionites."

A careful reading of these witnesses from early Christian history shows us that the Church affirmed by
the Fathers, articulated in the Creeds, and adhered to by those who called themselves Christians from the
earliest days of Christianity, was indeed the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. These early
Christian testimonies give us a picture of a visible Church, with apostolic authority, unity in belief and
mission, and with Christ as its foundation and head. They show us that the Church was, from its very
beginnings, understood as a visible reality, and Catholic both in the small ‘c’ and large ‘C’ senses of the
word.

The Church that Christ establishes is supposed to be in unity as one Church. We can read about it in
Ephesians 4:1-6, Collossians 3:15, Corinthians 12:12-26, John 17:20-23 and Romans 15:5-6.

I found a quote from an early church historian named J.N.D. Kelly, who was a non-Catholic, and he wrote,
"Where in practice was the apostolic testimony or tradition to be found?...The most obvious answer was
that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation
to generation...Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having
been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and
was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it"

It was the Catholic Church that defined the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity
in the one person of Jesus, salvation, baptism, the Eucharist, and all the other doctrines that have been
the bedrock of the Christian faith for nearly 2,000 years. It is also the Catholic Church that gave birth to
the New Testament...collecting, canonizing, preserving, distributing, and interpreting the books therein.

My point by all this above is to show that it is the same institution at Luke 6, as it is at Acts 2, as it is even
until today. It is one, (as Christ said) holy (as Christ instituted it), catholic (small c universal, as Christ's
gospel commission has been exercised over nearly 2,000 years) and apostolic. (just as Christ established
with the apostles who then laid hands on men to become bishops and their successors) An unbroken
chain of authority into the future that could teach the original revelation of Christ.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

As promised, here are those additional New Testament Apocrypha that are writings not accepted by the Church

Apostolic Fathers
 1 Clement · 2 Clement

Epistles of Ignatius

Polycarp to the Philippians

Martyrdom of Polycarp · Didache

Barnabas · Diognetus

The Shepherd of Hermas

Jewish–Christian gospels

Ebionites · Hebrews · Nazarenes

Infancy gospels

James · Thomas · Syriac · Pseudo-Matthew · History of Joseph the

Carpenter

Gnostic gospels

Judas · Mary · Philip · Truth · Secret Mark · The Saviour

Other gospels

Thomas · Marcion · Nicodemus · Peter · Barnabas

Apocalypse

Paul

Peter

Pseudo-Methodius · Thomas · Stephen

1 James · 2 James

Epistles

Apocryphon of James

Apocryphon of John

Epistula Apostolorum

Pseudo-Titus

Peter to Philip

Paul and Seneca

Acts
 Andrew · Barnabas · John · Mar Mari · The Martyrs

Paul

Peter · Peter and Andrew

Peter and Paul · Peter and the Twelve · Philip

Pilate · Thaddeus · Thomas · Timothy

Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca

Misc.

Diatessaron

Doctrine of Addai

Questions of Bartholomew

Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Prayer of the Apostle Paul

"Lost" books

Bartholomew · Matthias · Cerinthus · Basilides · Mani · Hebrews ·

Laodiceans