If, as you agree, the Holy Spirit, continues to guide the Church, the question is HOW? The Lord did not choose to send down the Gospel in the way he did the Torah, written by his hand on the tablets of the law. The only Scriptures that the Apostles and disciples had in hand when they began their mission were the same as the Rabbis had access to. Indeed, the New Testament is, as much anything else, an interpretation, interpretations, really of those scriptures in the light of the career of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the surety we have of the inspiration of the canon, is pretty much the same as that of the Jewish canon, which is by tradition. The Jews never at any time listed true books of the Canon, nor did the Church. Your assumption seems to be that we should look at the Scriptures pretty much as some schools of Islam look at their, that the Koran alone is divine.
Indeed, which is issue RCs must struggle with, for did the Lord preserved Truth and faith via a perpetual infallible magisterial office, or by a fallible yet authoritative magisterial office, while raising up men from without to reprove it, even if rejected by them? And thus the church began, and faith has been preserved. Thanks be to God.
The Lord did not choose to send down the Gospel in the way he did the Torah, written by his hand on the tablets of the law.
But the gospel depended upon OT Scriptural substantiation. For 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
The only Scriptures that the Apostles and disciples had in hand when they began their mission were the same as the Rabbis had access to.
Indeed, which was essential for the veracity of the claims of the NT church, and thus its establishment. Unlike the claims of Rome.
Indeed, the New Testament is, as much anything else, an interpretation, interpretations, really of those scriptures in the light of the career of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Indeed, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)" (Romans 1:1-2) and the writing of which the OT provided for, as it testifies to writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Furthermore, the surety we have of the inspiration of the canon, is pretty much the same as that of the Jewish canon, which is by tradition.
That is superficial: like the establishment of men of God, writings of God were essentially established as being so due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation. Without that they not would have been reverenced, while much of Scripture and most of the NT first existed in written form. (And Rome's decrees on tradition are not wholly inspired of God as Scripture is.)
The Jews never at any time listed true books of the Canon, nor did the [NT] Church.
It seems they had no real need to.
. Your assumption seems to be that we should look at the Scriptures pretty much as some schools of Islam look at their, that the Koran alone is divine.
Islam also believes in worship, but the devil uses God's principles while perverting His precepts. The error of Islam is not that of the principal of a supreme written standard, but that they have the wrong one.
And even a RC must admit Scripture is the only objective transcendent body of Truth of a comprehensive nature that is wholly inspired of God. Thus the devil invoked it in tempting the Lord, who defeated him by it, and substantiated His claims by it, and opened up the minds of the disciples to it, not tradition. (Mt. 4; Lk. 24:27,44)
Indeed that is TRUE and they quoted them over 100 times.. and that is because
Luke 24:25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
the New Testament is, as much anything else, an interpretation, interpretations, really of those scriptures in the light of the career of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The NT was being written by letters by the Apostles during their travels ... 2 Peter 3:15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter recognized that the letters were the new scriptures..inspired by the Holy Spirit
. Furthermore, the surety we have of the inspiration of the canon, is pretty much the same as that of the Jewish canon, which is by tradition.
No not by "tradition" by the assurity of the Holy Spirit
Romans 3:1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?…
The Jews never at any time listed true books of the Canon, nor did the Church.
Actually they had a canon WAY back
Nehemiah:6Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, "Amen, Amen!" while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground. 7Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, explained the law to the people while the people remained in their place. 8They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.
Luke 24:And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
While there are no other evidences in Holy Writ itself of a collection of the Holy Writings, there are some outside of it, which, in part, may now be mentioned in chronological order. The author of the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) was a contemporary of the high priest Simon—either the first or the second of that name—who lived at the beginning or at the end of the third century B.C. He knew the Law and Prophets in their present form and sequence; for he glorifies (ch. xliv.-xlix.) the great men of antiquity in the order in which they successively follow in Holy Writ. He not only knew the name ("The Twelve Prophets"), but cites Malachi iii. 23, and is acquainted with by far the greatest part of the Hagiographa, as is certain from the Hebrew original of his writings recently discovered.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon"
To say there was NO canon is to say the Son of God did not know what scriptures were true..as He taught in the Temple or when He led the disciples through them on that walk..