Where did Christ establish a Bible?
By substantiating His Truth claims upon the NT canon, as in
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. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And many other places, as did the NT church, thus evidencing that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And by inspiring via His Spirit the additional writings of the NT, by which you know of His oral preaching and church.
Where did Christ say his Church would be based on a Bible?
By having the church begin establish its oral Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The true church only consists of believers in the word of God, which Scripture assuredly is, and to which all truth claims as being the word of God are subject to testing by, as seen in Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
Now as to the alternative, where did Christ establish a church that did not established its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation, but instead, as with Rome, based its claims to veracity upon the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility?
And since the latter is the basis for RC assurance of Truth, contrary to how the NT church began, how can Rome be the one true church?
For the RC argument basically is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
Don't you agree with that?
Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
Recognition of these books as being Divine came from the same source that recognition of OT men and writings being of God came from. That being their unique Heavenly qualities and attestation. And as these writings testify to writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus in principal these writings provided for a canon of Scripture.
Now as concerns your alternative, Where was an infallible magisterium ever essential for men to correctly discern writings of God as being so, as RCs argue, and their meanings?
Why is Philemon on the Bible?
The same reason Isaiah is.
Thus the question is, since not men discerned both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium, and upon which foundational writings the church began, why do RCs imagine an perpetual infallible magisterium is essential for this?
Why did Luther remove Maccabees 1,500 years after Christ established His Church?
He simply did not remove them from a infallible universal or otherwise indisputable canon, which Rome only provided after the death of Luther, while scholarly doubt and disagreement over whether apocryphal books, including Maccabees, and some others continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent . Nor did Luther not include them in his Bible, though in a separate section, as per an established tradition.
And again, here is my response to Staples on SS, which by the grace of God, deals with the usually polemics RCs parrot.
Thus the question, why do certain RCs continue to post refuted polemics from thread to thread?
Try to answer me this time.
If history is any indicator I wouldn't hold your breath or even expect dialogue.
This is very true — and, indeed, John names the Word:
(John 1:1-5, 14)And this Word-made-flesh says that He is also the Truth:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
(John 14:6)
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
And so, given the utter centrality of Jesus —who is the Word, the Truth, and the Life— and who Himself intercedes on our behalf as high priest, why should we hold to the inferiority of a magisterium when given the utter excellence of Christ?
Interesting points, but did you intend to send them to me? They don’t seem related to what I wrote.