You are talking to the wrong guy. While I tend to work out of the Protestant Bible as being the most universally agreed upon, I am not fond of the concept of a 'canon'.
I ask again, what is stopping them from removing Romans 1 from the Word?
So what if they do? Such antics have been attempted before, and will undoubtedly be attempted again. Somehow, the Word of YHWH is preserved in spite of what any (including yours) attempt to do.
And what does Christ himself say? Christ himself says that the ‘Gates of Hell’ shall not prevail against his Church.
yeah, right... You might remember that gates are defensive. It has been a very long while since any established church made an offensive assault on the gates of hell. Longevity has *nothing* to do with that. Quite the opposite.
Then why did Jesus choose the Apostles and give them authority over the rest of the Church? There is a threefold heirarchy, and it is biblical. Right there in Acts.
Your interpretation thereof is likely to be different from mine. And it is a moot point: There were twelve Apostles (13 to count Paul) Each of them had disciples and so on, exponentially. And no one was keeping track - Shoot, it is hardly known where all the Apostles even WENT, not to mention who they may have authorized. And what to do with Paul, who was brought up from without the 12; who was taught at the knee of the resurrected Messiah Himself?
And at the time of Pentecost, there were 120, not 12. And they went out into the 4 corners too.
So any supposed 'authority' and record have very little veracity toward the point. ANY ONE of ANY disciples could be the only true Church and carry the laying on of hands.
Do not forget the line of the Kings of Israel, and how hidden they became. Like then, it is likely now, that those who rest upon such a claim are not the ones who actually own the claim:
Herod was the line of kings in Yeshua's day, and Herod was an Edomite (and so was the high priest at the Temple). Both of these claimed authority that could not possibly be theirs too.
It is far more likely that the laying on of hands passed down innumerable times, and many of them are effective (THAT NO ONE SHOULD BOAST).
You mean like the oneness pentecostals who reject the Trinity? Or the Seventh Day Adventists with the Satan is the brother of Christ bit? lots of interpretations, eh?
“You are talking to the wrong guy. While I tend to work out of the Protestant Bible as being the most universally agreed upon, I am not fond of the concept of a ‘canon’.”
There’s no Word without a Canon. The Word cannot, and does not define itself, but the Church sets the Canon. Protestants don’t get around this problem, they simply use a different tradition (that of Luther’s), rather than that of Pope Damasus from the 4th century.
“So what if they do? Such antics have been attempted before, and will undoubtedly be attempted again. Somehow, the Word of YHWH is preserved in spite of what any (including yours) attempt to do.”
Obviously not, given that those who have already mutilated the Canon now assert that their Canon is correct.
“Your interpretation thereof is likely to be different from mine”
That doesn’t make your interpretation correct. There is a threefolk heirarchy right in scripture. If you are arguing that Acts is part of the Word, then you cannot argue that the Church ought not have a heirarchy.
“ANY ONE of ANY disciples could be the only true Church and carry the laying on of hands.”
Nonsense. All of them are part of the true Church. Every single one and their disciples are as well. There is no division between the Apostles, but there is a division between Luther’s followers and the Church. And between Calvin’s followers and Luther’s followers and the Church. And between Zwingli’s followers, and Calvin’s followers, and Luther’s followers and the Church. Etc so on and so forth.