>>513401330can you really claim canon debates are minutiae while admitting papal heresies caused schisms?
the canon is what counts as God's Word, if that's negotiable, so is every doctrine built on it.
even trent's canon wasn't dogmatic until protestants rejected the deuterocanon.
Christ promised the Spirit would guide the Church into truth (John 16:13), not that councils would be infallible. the canon wasn't "created" by the church but recognized through its apostolic foundation.
augustine said "i would not believe the gospel unless moved by the authority of the church" yet still rejected maccabees as non-canonical.
you're right justin does claim jews excised Christological passages from ezra/jeremiah, but he admits these verses still existed in some synoguge copies in his day.
no early Christians besides justin references these lost texts, not origin, jerome, or even hostile critics like celsus
the dead sea scrolls confirm the masoretic text's stability, no missing Christological prophecies appear in older hebrew manuscripts.
justin's charge is dubious because he misattributes the "lamb led to slaughter" quote to jeremiah (it's from Isaiah 53:7)
isaiah 53:7 is intact in 150 BC DSS manuscripts.
even if some jews corrupted some texts, Christ and the apostles never accused them of this.
if an infallible magisterium is required, why didn't Christ establish one? instead he gave us
1: scripture's self-attestation (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21)
2: the berean model (Acts 17:11)
3: no command to submit to extra-biblical traditions (Colossians 2:8 warns against it)
Christ rebuked the pharisees for not recognizing Scripture's authority (Matthew 22:29, John 5:39) but they had no infallible magisterium.
how could God hold them accountable for knowing Isaiah was scripture if an infallible church is required to define the canon?
if the pharisees could discern canon without a magisterium, why can't Christians?