(262) 385-7485

Paul Whitlow Jr. The Bible says good fruit cannot come from a bad vine.

Was it or was it not the traditions of the Catholic Church that determined when the Bible was put together, what were authentic Books and what were not.

Eusebius History of the Church

Among the spurious books must be placed the 'Acts' of Paul, the 'Shepherd [of Hermas]' and the 'Revelation of Peter'; also the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and the 'Teachings of the Apostles', together with the 'Revelation of John' (if this seems the place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others include it among the Recognized Books). Moreover some have found a place in the list for the 'Gospel of the Hebrews', a book which has a special appeal for those Hebrews who have accepted Christ. These would all be classed with the Disputed Books, but I have been obliged to list the latter separately, distinguishing those writings which according to the tradition of the Church are true, genuine, and recognized, from those in a different category (not canonical, but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen).For we must not confuse these with the writings published by heretics under the names of the Apostles, as containing the gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mathias, and several others besides these, or Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. To none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer in his writings. Again, nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as the forgeries of heretics. It follows that so far from being classeven among 'The Spurious Books', they must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale.III.24: Of John's writings, besides the Gospel, the first of the epistles has been accepted as unquestionably his by scholars both of the present and of a much earlier period: the other two are disputed. As to the Revelation, the views of most people to this day are evenly divided.III.3: Of PETER one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings. But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to regard as uncanonical. Many however have thought it valuable and have honored it with a place among the other Scriptures. On the other hand, in the case of the ACTS attributed to Peter, the GOSPEL that bears his name, the PREACHING called his, and the so-called REVELATION, we have no reason at all to include these among the traditional Catholic scriptures, for neither in early days nor in our own has any Church writer made use of their testimony....Paul on the other hand was obviously and unmistakably the author of the fourteen epistles, but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that some authorities have rejected the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, pointing out that the Roman Church denies that it is the work of Paul. As for the ACTS attributed to Paul, no one has ever suggested to me that they are genuine.III.16: CLEMENT (Bishop [?] of Rome, ca. 92-98) has left us one recognized Epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church at Rome and sent to the church at Corinth, where dissension had recently occurred. I have evidence that in many churches this epistle was read aloud in to the assembled worshippers in early days, as it is in our own. That it was in Clement's time that the dissension at Corinth broke out is plain from the testimony of Hegesippus.III.38: It must not be overlooked that there is a second epistle said to be from Clement's pen, but I have no reason to suppose that it was well known like the first one, since I am not aware that the early fathers made any use of it. A year or two ago other long and wordy treatises were put forward as Clement's work. They contain alleged dialogues with Peter and Apion, but there is no mention whatever of them by early writers, nor do they preserve in its purity the stamp of apostolic orthodoxy.III. 27: A second group [of Heretics] went by the same name [Ebionites], but escaped the outrageous absurdity of the first. They did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless shared their refusal to acknowledge His pre-existence as God the Word and Wisdom. Thus the impious doctrine of the others was their undiong too, especially since they placed equal emphasis on the outward observance of the Law. They held that theEpistles of the Apostle ought to be rejected altogether, calling him a renegade from the Law. And using only the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' they treated the rest with scant respect.