“There are plenty of other works which survive that are not canon.”
Yes, and those works meet only one the two criteria I mentioned, and not the most important one at that.
“Let me ask you something. Suppose you look around and find something that you didn’t know before. What would you think if looked back and found that it’s been known a thousand years prior?”
Your question doesn’t match the context of the matter we are discussing, since the NT was not unknown to Luther and the reformers. So, my response to such a scenario would be irrelevant. Let’s stick to discussing things that are relevant.
“I’m just saying. You got it from us. Not the other way around. The bible predated Protestants. Protestants didn’t create the bible. Before there was anything that could even conceivably be called a Protestant, the bible had been in existance for over a thousand years.”
So, you obey the Jewish authorities, since their Scriptures predated Rome, right?
“What you guys did - was take our book and crib off of it. That’s it.”
Again the prideful boasting. The Book is GOD’s, not yours. The men who God picked to deliver His revelation to credited it to HIM, not themselves. Yet, you would credit it, not to God, or to those He revealed it to, but to some later editors and compilers? Then use your spurious claim to lord over others who attribute it correctly? How exactly is that seemly behavior for a Christian?
“Let’s stick to discussing things that are relevant.”
Knowing that the bible predates the Protestants is kinda relevant to the topic at hand.
“So, you obey the Jewish authorities, since their Scriptures predated Rome, right?”
Absolutely I do.
“Yet, you would credit it, not to God, or to those He revealed it to, but to some later editors and compilers?”
As opposed to crediting it to Luther? Absolutely.
“How exactly is that seemly behavior for a Christian?”
How is a statement of historical fact arrogant?