But although you all did not have a closed canon (and some RCs even debate whether Trent actually closed it, vs. defining what books it presently consisted of) you hold them to the later binding defined canon. And that the canon was not universally accepted, and the faithful had freedom to doubt or disagree on its exact contents, has already been established, if seemingly forgotten.
Thus once again the issue is that of authority which I refuted, yes which again is your recourse. That the Jews later established the Masoretic canon is not the basis for our non-compelled consensus on our canon, and that this was that which Christ referred as Scripture, but its establishment is essentially due to to the enduring enduring qualities and supernatural attestation of these books, despite the Deuteros being included in Scripture for a long time. They are not simply true, but have a unique anointing in veracity. Hebrews 4:12. I would say the Wisdom of Solomon comes closest to Scripture, but is falsely assigned to him.
But this is exactly the Catholic position; the Church received and follows the Alexandrian canon rather than the Palestinian one. The Christian Church cannot be held bound by the decision of 1st/2nd century Jews to limit themselves to the narrower Palestinian canon. By this time the authority over all of Scripture had been translated from the Jews to the Christian Church.
So either the NT church could not be bound by any judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses, or they could but dissent based upon evidential warrant for the former being wrong, but somehow "The Church" later becomes (conditionally) infallible - if she does say so herself - so that it cannot be wrong despite evidential warrant to the contrary. For the latter is disallowed because she is the infallible judge of whether there is or not, thus the Assumption, etc.
That is essentially your position, but the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome was not how the NT church began or ruled. Look upthread.
If you disagree, show me where ensured magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome was exampled and or essential for authority and preservation of Truth in the OT and the NT. Want to try Caiaphas? Or save time trying for it is not there, despite strenuous extrapolative attempts.
The existence of a shorter Palestinian canon is irrelevant if the early Christian Church had accepted the longer Alexandrian canon that had exited alongside it.
Which presumes it was infallible, and infallibly defined it them, neither of which is the case.
Since there was no single, and universally accepted, canon among the Jews, it is anachronistic to say that the New Testament Church meant this when they referred to Scripture.
That is simply an absurd argument, since there need not be a universally accepted canon for the church to hold to one (and the most authoritative) body of inspired writings as being the correct one, which is what your own finally church presumed to do!
And there still is not one universally accepted identical canon among all Catholics, unless you exclude the EOs, and RCs necessarily must make an issue of exactness. The analogical difference here with that of Prots vs. EO with Rome is only a matter of degrees.
This is especially true since they quoted the Old Testament using the Septuagint, a product of Alexandria, rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.
Rather, the anachronism is on you, since you are the one reading a 4th century LXX, even with its different canon than that of Trent, into the 1st c., despite extensive historical testimony contrary to that presumption. The original 3rd century BC commission to pen the LXX was, according to tradition, only that of translating the Torah into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria with more later being added, but as much shown, the weight of evidence is against the 1st c. LXX containing the Deuteros, if all of it contents of were even penned by it completion in 132 BC.
I did not mention the Council of Jamnia. While that council most likely did not exist, there was a rabbinical school there, of which Akiba was a member.
You invoked the leader of the "rabbinical school in Jamnia" as explicitly excluding the Deuterocanonical books, which claim is dubious.
But there was no one authoritative canon, the issue being disputed among the Jews.
Again, there not not be one universally held authoritative for Christ and the NT church to reference one authoritative body of writings, which quite evidentially did exist, even most likely concurring with that of the Pharisees, whose authority itself was not universally recognized. And again, if you mean one infallibly defined/indisputable canon, then for RCs, that would wait 1400 years.
Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either.
I never said that there was.
But you mispresented /argued against me as one arguing "for a closed canon which excluded the Deuterocanonical books," which I never did!
No one can deny that the issue of the canon was disputed, that is until the 4th century, when the Church made authoritative ruling, even if it was not, at the time, an infallible one. That the question arose again later does not negate that the issue was considered settled until the late Middle Ages.
Wrong again. You asserted that from 405 "From this point on there was universal acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books in the West," yet a documented, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
Even then, the majority of opinion was in favor of retaining the Deuterocanonical books that had been accepted by the Church since the 4th century.
Even then, forbidding disagreement was was hardly universally affirmed, with only 44% (with 27% nay, 29% abstaining) voting to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
As regards to the reference to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, while individual references can be questioned, the overall conclusion must be that the New Testament was influenced by these books.
Using that "influenced" goal post then even the books of pagans can be affirmed as Scripture.
But as you have admitted, this authoritative body was not a closed canon.
As you must admit as regards yours, at least until 1546.
After the establishment of the Church, whatever authority that was possessed by the Seat of Moses was transferred to the Church, which decided in favor of the larger Alexandrian canon.
Then it follows that if the doctrinal judgment of those who are actually said to sit in the seat of Moses can be faulty (despite clearly having binding authority), then so can those who claim to be its successors. Even after allowing doubt and disagreement among her faithful for over 1400 post-apostolic years.
And if so, and if God can manifestly raise up deliverance from tyrannical rulers and governments in establishing new ones, and raise up children of Abraham from stones, then so can God raise up men and churches from stones who professes the essential evangelical faith of the gospel of Peter and Paul, that of Christ. Would to God that Catholics were born again by it, as well as all Prots.
Exactly, except that I would take issue with your characterization of the "Roman church government," a pejorative term which seeks to limit the Catholic Church to the pope and Rome.
Not again. "Rome" is to the Catholic church as "Washington" is to the USA, denoting the official seat of its government, the Vatican.
And need I show you that Rome herself used the term "Roman Church" in identifying herself even well before the Reformation (1075), as well as after it? If that is necessarily a pejorative term then you must correct your church.
It was the universal Church, in union with the pope,
You mean in exclusion to those "other Catholics," those of
Eastern Orthodoxy, official name Orthodox Catholic Church (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eastern-Orthodoxy); The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is "the Orthodox Catholic Church" (https://www.dowoca.org/orthodoxy); "Eastern Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy, One of the three branches of world Christianity and the major Christian church in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the Orthodox church, also sometimes called the Eastern church, or the Greek Orthodox, or Orthodox Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox Church... (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Published 1911; http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/orthodox.htm); or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church. (https://www.oca.org/questions/teaching/what-is-the-proper-name-for-the-orthodox-church)
But why should any Christian accept the decision of the Protestant Reformers to reject what the universal Church had accepted for over a thousand years?
They did not in either case. The establishment of the 66 book Prot canon is not essentially due to the Reformers decree, though certainly influenced by the teaching of such, but as with the common people ascertaining that men such as John the Baptist were of God - despite the judgment of those in leadership - it was been the ongoing purity power and probity of what we recognize as the written word of God that is the essential basis for its establishment.
Which, despite no binding "infallible" decree, is arguably overall more settled among Prots overall (%-wise) than among those who accept a larger canon. Thus if unity by authority is your argument, then you do not have a real case.
In addition, there simply was and is no uniformly accepted canon in the universal Church for over a thousand years, regardless of how often you repeat that propaganda. We disagree with what Trent later settled for RCs and which many esteemed faithful RCs did without ecclesial censure in their time until Trent made the majority position binding upon her own.
Thus as you tend to forget or ignore some of what refutes you while failing to refute what you do not, your real argument is that of authority, that as the authoritative magisterial stewards of Scripture we must submit to Rome. Which again, in principal works against you. Maybe its time to move on.