Hey, you know how the NT Canon was established 300 years after the time of Jesus by a church council??

Well, it wasn't.
1. Paul claims all Scripture is "God breathed"- II Tim 3:16 not tradition breathed.
2. Peter claims Paul's writings were scripture- II Peter 3:16. This gives us 60% of the NT.
3. Paul claims that Luke's gospel was scripture. I Timothy 5:17-18 refers to a passage only found in Luke as "scripture". Luke was part of a 2 volume set with Acts. Thus, both of these books were viewed as scripture.
4. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would teach his apostles "all things" in John 16:13-14, 26. This would mean that John's gospel (written by an eyewitness that "Jesus loved"), 3 letters, and Revelation were viewed as scripture.
5. Matthew seems to have been written by Levi, one of the apostles and an eye witness. This would mean it was viewed as scripture.
6. Jesus' brother James was viewed as a leader among the apostles and the Spirit descended upon himv(Gal 1:19, I Cor 15:7). Thus, his letter was viewed as scripture.
7. Mark's gospel appears to be the oldest and early post biblical sources attribute him as the writer with aid from Peter.
Thus, the only books we have not established as authoritative in the early, early church are Hebrews and Jude. While we do not have the entire NT canon mentoned here, we do have 95% of it. This wrecks the argument that the NT was not established until the 4th/5th century and that the Bible derives its authority from the church. Instead, we see the opposite. Jesus, by the Spirit, through the apostles, leaves the scriptures to instruct the church. Instead of tradition birthing scripture, tradition only is valid if it is built upon scripture.
This is reflected in extra biblical evidence like the Muratorian Canon