Using the bible alone, please provide me with a canonical list.

Using the canonical list that you know to be inspired,why can't it stand on it's own?

Avoiding the question or just missing the point?

Back to my previous question...Is the Table of Contents inspired?

Is it?

I am asking you. Yes or no would suffice.

n2, stop trying to be cute and answer the questions.

The Bible does not claim inspiration for itself. The Church claims inspiration for it; the Church having compiled and the writings she deems inspired into a volume of books called the Holy Bible. You rely on the authority of the Church to know that the books in your Bible are inspired, whether you like it or not. We have listed for you (a number of times) the Catholic Councils wherein those writings were decreed to be inspired. You ignore the plain facts of the history of the Bible in favor of the opinions of men whom you look to as your authority. You follow men, not Christ.

Okay,let's say all this is true,bottom line is it's in fact inspired,my question is,why is it not enough?Why can't it stand on it's own?

how many different interpretations are put forth by people...all allegedly 'led by the Holy Spirit'... therein lies the problem don't you think

Can one become a doctor with just a text book or does he need a teacher AND the university system AND the text book?

Paul tells the Ephesians that it is the TEACHERS God has placed in His CHURCH that prevent us from being "children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine".

God did not leave us as orphans but left us a teaching Church.

exactly my point metal... w/o that central authority, any number of things can come from the bible...isn't that why there is over 40k different denominations/ecclesial communities?

There is a local man being charged with polygamy, a practice he defends with the bible. Who is to say he is wrong if not the Church?

But that would be a problem in interpretation only,meaning all the Church has to do is give the correct one.....Why does the church need other sources to interpret that which was given to it?

it is good that you agree that the Church is the only one to interpret the bible... that is a start.... but your question was why can't it stand on its own...and it is because the 40k denoms/communities all have a different idea of what it means "standing on its own"

She does. Or haven't you noticed? What sources are you referring too? There is only one source, the Holy Spirit.

Why can't the church use scripture only?If guided by the Holy Spirit is that all she would need, is the Holy Scripture's?

Because the Spirit has give us Apostolic Tradition also. Again what other source are you referring to?

That was the source(apostlic tradition),now why would the Holy Spirit give the church tradition,when it said scripture was enough and to not add to that which was in it.....

II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

II Timothy 3:17 "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

If scripture is enough to make us perfect and furnished why do we need tradition?

In essence what the catholic church is saying,is that scripture is not enough,which in turn contradict the very scripture you all claim to have given to the world....How can that be?

where does that quote say it is 'enough'? you see the problem now? it doesn't even say what you claim it says...but use that as "proof" scripture is all we need

I take perfect to mean enough