Your very first statement concerning Jerome being the sole exception is in error. That you cannot accept Athanasius' very clear statement on what is and isn't Scripture is a clear enough example of why I felt our previous discussion was doomed to an endless tailchase. You are very devoted to your beliefs, but as I pointed out previously, not even the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with your position. So forgive me if I continue to question the rest of your assumptions and decide to examine the facts for myself. And as I stated previously, once I have done that, I will be happy to share with you what I have concluded.
"That you cannot accept Athanasius' very clear statement on what is and isn't Scripture is a clear enough example of why I felt our previous discussion was doomed to an endless tailchase."
Hardly true. I have given you quotes - and you still continue this total denial of fact. Your "search" notwithstanding, you must admit you are incredibly biased and have already made up your mind on the matter at hand. "the Church are a bunch of liars", you said on several occasions. How are we supposed to believe you are not biased with such statements? To again prove your bias, tell me, if Athanasius thinks that none of the Deuts are INSPIRED SCRIPTURE, why does he write the following:
"And where the SACRED WRITERS say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313
Daniel (Deut), Isaiah, and Baruch, in one sentence are described by Athanasius as SACRED WRITERS.
WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE NEED TO SHOW YOU ARE WRONG???
Regarding the 39th Festal Letter, I already explained to you that "canon" did not equal "inspired Scripture" like it does today! You ignore that, too. Canon at the time refered to what would be proclaimed at the Liturgy. These other Deuterocanonicals were to be read in private, and were still considered Scripture, as the above quote (and I have more) state. Cyril of Jerusalem makes the same distinction. Yet you totally ignore this. You continue to mention 39th Festal Letter as if I said NOTHING at all! Oh, it is frustrating alright...
You have yet told me your standards that you will even use to decide a said Father considers something Scripture! WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? I have constantly asked you of this, with no response. This tells me you have no real desire to research, but to nitpick. I have constantly asked you to consider that anything you apply to the Fathers regarding the OT Deuts will be applied to the NT Deuts - without you admitting the implications. Research has already been done. All that remains is for you to accept the results. I am seriously beginning to doubt that you will EVER accept the fact that the Fathers of the late 300's were in a better position to determine what was considered Scripture by the rest of the Church. Your arrogant presumptions of finding the Church in error from 1700 years removed is beyond me. It just isn't there!
If you go back to our last few posts regarding Deuts a few weeks ago, look over YOUR posts, you will find why I disengaged speaking to you. If anyone is stubbornly holding an opinion that is being proven wrong, it would be you. Your strategy of refering me to arguments that you yourself admit were incorrect, then re-refering me to them again and again, calling the Church liars or poorly misled, false accusations that I supposedly was deciding your mindset (when you practically spelled it out in your writing), and continuously going off subject were among the other reasons why this conversation will probably never be resolved to YOUR satisfaction.
I would be interested to know when you are going to remove James, Revelation, 2 Peter, and Hebrews from your Bible, if you are going to remove the Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach and the rest... Again, the research has been done. Apply the results consistently.
By all means, let me know when you come to the realization that the Church Fathers put forth an honest effort to determine what was Scripture. I have found absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Regards