Rather, as with your pasted unattributed polemic, unlike me, you fail to document what you can only imagine you have or are refuting, and instead of my contending "no one believed Tobit" and that you "simply reminded" me "of the prominence of that writing in the Essene community," what I said was ""As if one should believe such a fantastic tale," - NOT "no one believed Tobit!"
And in response, you argued there were actually 5 copies of "Tobit" found in the Qumran deposit of Sacred Writings used by the Essenes...what is not debatable for you is that the The Jewish sect of Essenes DID believe "such fantastic tales" (as you say) as sacred scripture."
Therefore once again in deflection, contrary to your claim that you simply reminded me of the prominence of that writing in the Essene community, you argued that they DID believe such fantastic tales as this.
Next, after I exposed the logic behind your "Scripture by association" logic, came your first misrepresentation of what I said, which is that "You were wrong to suggest that no one could believe Tobit in Christ’s day" which is a clear misconstruance of what I said,. turning "as if anyone should believe" into "should believe," which is like saying "no one should believe "The Book of Mormon" means that "no one believes" that work. And which is an absurd presumption on your part that I would deny anyone believed Tobit since I have clearly attested to Catholics believing in that book as Scripture. For which documented misconstruance you could apologize.
And after arguing for Tobit by saying "The Jewish sect of Essenes DID believe "such fantastic tales" (as you say) as sacred scripture" based upon some of the company it was found with, you proceed to say "They thought something of that book then to be sure," which status is not at issue. Then you resort to the old nonsense that since your church said this was Scripture than so it is, which is as absurd as your church saying that what it likewise defines is Truth, including the very premise that she defines herself as possessing this ensured veracity.
"Who gets to decide what is Scripture?"
Since it is indisputable that an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ (as manifest by the Lord's frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself - Luke 24:27, and which writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church), therefore the answer to the question is not so much who but how. Which is by the same means by which the church began, with souls rightly discerning men as being of God even though their historically valid magisterium did not, which discernment was essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation (even though John - and "all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed:" Mark 11:32 did no miracles, unlike the norm). Likewise the establishment of writings of God was/is due to the same. Which consensus of the faithful church councils are to affirm, but that does not infer nor require ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is nowhere promised nor exampled, nor is it how God preserved Truth.
And the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Meanwhile, i do not see your conrades practicing the official RC alternative to veracity being based upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as so many self-professed "true Catholics" as dissent from their "living magisterium," which they sit in judgment on based upon what the decide is historical RC teaching and its meaning, versus basic historical papal requirements (which obviously must be open to interpretation:
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14) /p>