Your clobbering me with tons of sources, appealing to various authorities, but none who speak any more authoritatively than those who deny that Abraham ever existed, for instance. Scholars can debate endlessly whether Jamnia fixed the canon, but there is no reasonable debate from anyone who believes in the historicity of the gospels that there was no single, fixed canon at the time of Jesus.
Not only does traditional (non-anti-Christian) history say this, but YOU claim that the law, the prophets and the scriptures are one canon, but Jesus doesn’t use them as such: when he speaks to the Sadducees, he doesn’t cite the prophets, because the Sadducees don’t believe in the prophets. The Pharisees accept the resurrection because the prophets attest to it; the Sadducees don’t because they don’t accept the canon of the prophets.
We can go down a rabbit hole as to whether the Sadducees consider the prophets to have been the Word of God, but we know that the Sadducees refuse any doctrine which does not exist within the Talmud, so their approach to the prophets may be seen as akin to the Anglican approach to the deueterocanonicals, or the broader Protestant approach to the ancient Church fathers: they attest that the products are products of a true faith, but they will not accept them as theologically authoritative. That satisfies my concept of whether or not they considered them canonical: Not.
False. Not just skeptics,. but as showed, and can be, sources include "Bible Christians" as https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/four-myths-related-bibles-origins/) as well as Catholics, even the sophist Catholic Answers: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-council-that-wasnt
Scholars can debate endlessly whether Jamnia fixed the canon, but there is no reasonable debate from anyone who believes in the historicity of the gospels that there was no single, fixed canon at the time of Jesus.
Stop misrepresenting my argument, which as stated, was not that there was single, fixed canon at the time of Jesus, but that as said,
an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) And which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church. Not only does traditional (non-anti-Christian) history say this, but YOU claim that the law, the prophets and the scriptures are one canon, but Jesus doesn’t use them as such:
Actually, as also showed, He does indeed:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
We also have divisions within what we call Scripture.
when he speaks to the Sadducees, he doesn’t cite the prophets, because the Sadducees don’t believe in the prophets.
Illogical, as this is simply accommodation, as with Paul in stating, "to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law' (1 Corinthians 9:20) but which did not logically mean Paul was denying the New Covenant!
the broader Protestant approach to the ancient Church fathers: they attest that the products are products of a true faith, but they will not accept them as theologically authoritative
Rather, citing them is also an accommodation to Catholics who think of them "above that which is written" (1 Co. 4:6) in holy writ, while the fact that the Prot canon is correspondent to the Palestinian one also does not translate into accepting them as theologically authoritative. Concurrence with someone does not necessary logically denote affirmation of all else they hold to.