You wrote:
“The OT canon was set by the Scribes and Pharisees etc., to my understanding, but of course that was verified by Christ.”
Show us proof from scripture alone for either one of those claims. Where did Christ ever “verify” the OT canon? Where in scripture do you EVER see the Pharisees and Scribes detailing the canon?
“A major reason we have the books of the OT that we have is because Jesus quoted from all of them as authoritative.”
False. Show me where Christ ever quoted Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon. Now, maybe I missed one or two citations, but He did not quote from most or all of those books I just listed.
“With the exception of Song of Solomon. He did not quote from the Apogrypha. (sp?)”
(sigh) You mean “the Apocrypha” and what you mean, but apparently don’t even know it are the Deutercanonicals.
“As for the New Testament canon, that was established by the early church, most importantly the apostles, who were given a tremendous authority by Christ.”
Name the Apostle who detailed the canon? Name him. Show me the verse that startling fact appears in. Can you?
“You may say those early church apostles and leaders were the RC church, but they did not characterize themselves as RC. Or Protestant.”
They called the Church the Catholic Church - St. Ignatius of Antioch make sthat abundantly clear. He died in 107.
“They were just the church.”
Right - the CATHOLIC CHURCH.
“There was no Vatican, no Holy See, etc.”
The Vatican is just a complex. There were no Bibles then either. That doesn’t mean scripture lacked authority just because no one produced single volume, bound Bibles. Also, the Holy See existed where Peter was.
“RCs teach that Peter was Pope, but, the Bible does not say he was, or that anyone else was.”
Actually the Bible makes it pretty clear Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
“Where did Christ ever “verify” the OT canon?”
“Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther” were always included in the “history collection” of Jewish books and “Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon” were always included in the “poetry collection”. By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. The whole collection is ignored.
I said, the scribes and Pharisees, to my understanding, preserved the Scriptures. I did not say the Bible said so. This is historical information, and is not infallible. That’s why I said it’s “to my understanding.”
“Name the Apostle who detailed the canon? Name him. Show me the verse that startling fact appears in. Can you?”
The apostles are shown being directly commissioned by Jesus to teach, preach, baptized, etc. They then commenced to do so, and claimed that authority in the New Testament as they wrote the gospels and epistles.
“They called the Church the Catholic Church - St. Ignatius of Antioch make sthat abundantly clear. He died in 107.”
That’s history, not scripture, but I’ll accept it.
Catholic means comprehensive, in its entirety. Ignatius called it the catholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church. There is a big difference. The catholic church refers to the one church Jesus died for; every believer at every time in history who has put their trust in Christ. This, a true Protestant confesses and believes.
Most Protestant churches confess the Apostle’s creed, stating the we believe in
“I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.”
We aren’t talking about the Roman Catholic church here!
“The Vatican is just a complex. There were no Bibles then either. That doesn’t mean scripture lacked authority just because no one produced single volume, bound Bibles.”
Indeed, the Vatican is just a complex.
There were Bibles. They were not bound by Thomas Nelson publishers; they consisted of the scrolls of the Old Testament books and the epistles being circulated through the churches.
“Actually the Bible makes it pretty clear Peter was the leader of the Apostles.”
I disagree. Peter was extremely important. But John is also very prominently featured. Interestingly, Peter was largely featured for his impetuous outbursts and for his triple denial of Christ, which he of course was later forgiven for.
As an aside, I am particularly appreciative of the record of Peter’s denial. Many were forced to recant their trust in Christ under torture, particularly during the midieval era. It is the example we see of Christ forgiving Peter while not dismissing the denials that taught the church to restore such as were too weak to bear up under torture and denied Jesus in their anguish.
Peter, John and James were a threesome that were more frequently recorded as being pulled aside for extra counsel or experiences, for example, the Mount of Transfiguration.
The apostle given the most influence, at least Biblically, was Paul.
Actually, as I think about it, the Bible records Paul correcting Peter on a matter of doctrine, I believe it was forcing new Christians to get circumcised? not totally certain, anyway, Peter submits to Paul’s correction.
I am not nominated Paul for the office of first Pope, just pointing out Paul’s apparent authority.