The first Christians weren't Bible Christians

[Aractus]

Okay that second comment you made didn't jive with me at all. If the Catholic Church was lead astray that would mean Christians were lead astray for more than 1500 years.

TC, both the RCC and the Orthodox church claim to trace their inception back to the disciples themselves. Truth be told, we (that is the protestant Christians) do not know 100% exactly when the RCC as we know it first formed.

The SolaScriptura DOctrine is a "Jonny come lately" for Christianity that was invented by the founders of the Reformation in the 16th Century and embraced by no significant communion of Christians (Church) for about 1500 years.

Nonsense. At the Council of Trent (mid 16th century) the RCC decreed the Vulgate to be Holy, Inspired, Without Error - the authorities scripture. Jerome would have turned in his grave. Even today 99% of Catholics do not know that the Vulgate is infallible scripture according to their Church.

Since that time we've proven beyond doubt that the Masoretic Text is far more reliable than the LXX from which Jerome translated the OT portion of the Vulgate - or as I prefer to call it, column 5 of the Hexapla.

Whose determination of the canon of Scripture is authoritative? (If your answer is "the Scriptures testify to their own canonicity", then, since persons disagree about the content of this testimony, whose determination of the content of this testimony is authoritative?)

Well the RCC decided upon their present canon on 8 April 1546 by a manufactured vote (voting pontiffs were threatened with excommunication). In fact Priests and Bishops who'd been using the original languages instead of the Latin were excommunicated at this time by the RCC, Martin Luther for instance (though this wasn't just to do with the translation but also his rejection of RCC doctrines outlined in the 95 Theses).

On 3 September 1943 Pope Pius XII decreed that the original Greek and Hebrew texts were also sacred, now this is what the Protestants had been saying all along - you have to remember that in 1546 it was the Protestants who said that the original language scriptures were more reliable and it took the RCC 400 years to catch up! But the RCC still decrees that the Vulgate is also infallible - so now you have two sets of scripture, and they have inconsistencies (ie errors that Jerome made when translating, and errors that the LXX translators made and that Theodotion made and that Origen made). Interesting how Origen would have been just as heretical to the same standards the RCC applied to Martin Luther, yet they think he's part of their lineage?

#2 Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?

The RCC, according to the RCC as decreed at the Council of Trent! See the issue yet?

Whose determination of which councils are authoritative is authoritative? (If you deny that any Church councils are authoritative, then skip this question

Well the RCC ones are not. As an Anglican we generally accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, although we wouldn't accept anything that contradicted the scriptures. We do not see the Church as infallible, whereas the RCC believe itself to be infallible.

Whose determination of orthodoxy and heresy is authoritative? (If your answer is "Scripture", then go to question #2

Again, this requires incredibly detailed knowledge of the very early church. But look, the books of the bible that may be of some small level of dispute do not really add any doctrine not found in the rest of them, for instance if you took away 1 and 2 Peter it would make no difference. All they do is reaffirm what the other books say as it is.

But of course there would be Gnostic/ heretical wrings, I mean to expect otherwise would be very ignorant. There were heretical Jewish writings - what about the Samaritan Pentateuch for instance?

You seem to have been taught from the RCC's point of view, my advice is to research it yourself and make up your own mind. I certainly don't get my early church history from a "church source" Anglican or otherwise.