Yea, and the Gospels, as well, FK... Is that who you are going to follow?
You're comparing apples and oranges. Of course non-Christian Jews reject the NT. So what? We're not talking about that. We're talking about their historical texts, the ones they had used for centuries. I think their view deserves some weight. I have heard it argued that the Jews at Jamnia were very anti-Christian, so they took out the "Christian" books of the OT. That doesn't make any sense to me because if it was possible to edit out Christianity from the OT, then there would be no OT.
FK, there was no "New Testament" as you so put it until much later in Christian history. The writings of Paul and the Gospels were considered as SCRIPTURE - and not differentiated into two separate sets until later. I have already given enough historical basis for the Deuterocanonicals being considered in the same sentence by the Fathers as the Protocanonicals, using verses from both in the same sentence to prove a point - and calling them BOTH Scripture.
Your differentiation is anachronistic and not historical given the time period we are discussing (first century)
I think their view deserves some weight.
As I said before, the SAME "Council of Jamnia" determined that the Christian Gospels were heretical. You be the judge if you want to follow their determinations. Next, you'll be telling me that because the Jewish Pharisees didn't believe that Christ was the Messiah, we shouldn't either.
See where your logic leads on this subject?
Regards