God did this long before Martin Luther came on the scene and decided on his own initiative to deprive other Christians of the entire Word of God in Scriptures.
These authorities had no say in what was truly Canonical. Only God did.
It should be quite obvious that God spoke through men to determine the Canon, since God didn't leave a book a la Koran. Thus, the Christian Church recognized the various Councils' determinations of what was Scripture, to include St. Jerome. Even HE recognized that God had spoken through the Catholic Church's Councils on the subject. He obeyed what he saw as God speaking through men to determine the Canon.
Again, your logic makes no sense. Why on earth should anyone believe Luther was right on this subject?
After I did this you made certain claims that I rebutted in a rather lengthy post which followed.
I don't see where your "rebuttal" refuted anything I wrote.
Logically, I have received a theological education and have been schooled enough in the GENUINE Word of God that I recognize the counterfeit when I see it.
St. Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostics who used the very same Scripture to "prove" their own disturbing theological theories. St. Irenaeus showed that only the Church gives the correct interpretation - since a book cannot speak for itself on matters it only describes vaguely. Thus, God gave man a Sacred Book and a Sacred Body of believers to interpret correctly this book.
Your argument totally ignores the fact that MANY books claimed to be "Scriptures". It was the Church, with its Apostolic Traditions and teachings, that were able to discern what was truly Scripture - which coincided with what they had been taught by the Apostles. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas was left out, because it disputed what they had been taught. You would have us believe you would recognize the Gospel of Thomas as non-Scriptural WITHOUT this body of teachings?
And lest we forget what brought up the subject to begin with - namely, the latent, and I would now say BLATANT anti-semitism in this thread
The only anti-semitism here is in your imagination. In your effort to cover your tracks, you try to call us names? I am telling you that the Jews of "Jamnia" were in no position to accurately tell us the Canon, since they couldn't determine that the Crucified One was the Messiah, nor did they recognize that the writings about Him were from God. I have said nothing anti-semetic. You are merely trying to direct the attention away your lack of logic by claiming we are calling Jews names. That is ridiculous and really sad that you have to stoop to such a level... Now, if you want to continue to side with the Jewish determination of what the Scriptures are, to include the removal of the Gospels, that is your perogative. But then you can no longer be considered Christian.
Regards
Jo Kus. Evidentally you have failed to read what I said. I have REPEATEDLY - R E P E A T E D L Y - said I wasn't talking about the Jews at Jamnia. Since I REPEATEDLY SAID who it was I wasn't referring to and you still accused me of supporting one John calls "Anti-Christ" then it is a logical conclusion that you must mean the other Jews i.e., those not at Jamnia since it wasn't the Jews at Jamnia I was supporting.
Neither have I named Luther as a source of authority for determining the Canon. My use of "protestant" does not imply that I rely on Luther or any other protestant as the source, rather, it was to distinguish it from the Catholic Bible. But, I suppose you knew that (or should have based upon the clear meaning of my words in the previous post and in the very quote you lifted from it). You have superimposed Luther's name because that is what Catholics do when they want to stir up the troops.
You lower the canon to something that Man identifies and determines and lower God to one who relies on man to determine his Canon as if it wasn't in existence in whole before some council somewhere stated that it was. You fluff off Jerome's statements concerning the canonicity of the books and do not realize that by the council's own standards in the 1500s dear Sainted Jerome would have been declared anathema.
Finally, you elevate the teachings of men to that higher than the teaching of the Holy Spirit by proclaiming that there was no way that we could know that Thomas wasn't scriptural outside of the teachings of the higher eschelon of the Roman bureaucracy. Nevermind that the Holy Spirit was promised to teach us. God evidentally felt we were too dumb to learn so he placed over us a bunch of second sons of European Aristocracy so that we would get it right.
I don't expect for you to understand. It is clear that you have bought the RCC's view hook line and sinker. However, I do draw the line between inability to understand and outright deceptiveness when you deliberately misstate what I have said. You have deliberately misstated what I have said explicitly about Jamnia in the hopes that people can't or won't read the long responses I have had towards your assertions. But, for the record, and for the casual reader picking up the thread at this point I will repeat - I NEVER SUPPORTED THE JEWS AT JAMNIA NOR DID I EVER PROCLAIM THAT THEIR AUTHORITY DETERMINED SQUAT CONCERNING THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. In fact, I stated the opposite and referred to the Jews prior to Christ as the ones who were led by God in the determination of the Old Testament Canon. I have also asserted that this occurred prior to the time of Christ based upon Jesus' statements concerning the Scriptures being the Law the Prophets and the Psalms. I noted that the Jews considered the historical books Jo Kus referred to as part of the prophets. Former prophets verses latter prophets. Such an explanation is deliberately ignorred as Jo Kus tries to deceive the unsuspecting into believing I said something that I did not. I have answered Jo Kus in other posts and welcome ANYONE to read what was actually said.
As to name calling, I have noted how expressed views on this thread are full of latent and blatant anti-semitism. To this, Jo Kus takes great offense. But, since we are on the subject of name calling...in your post 10787, Jo Kus, you may recognize a few names called such as 'hypocritical', one who 'sides with the anti-christ', a 'smearer of the church' , one who 'sides with those who deny Christ and the inspired words of the gospel', ' a manipulator who stands on illogical points of view', 'desperate', one who has the goal of 'wounding the church' one who has the goal of 'leading the sheep astray' a 'wolf amongst the sheep' 'nonsensical' 'obviously not concerned with bringing souls to the truth, but with leading people astray.' So, dear jo kus, before you feign great distress over the charge of anti-semitism, observe the mote in your own eye.
If you can find anywhere where I said we should follow the Jews at Jamnia in their determination of Scripture - produce it. I can show you at least 3 and now 4 times where I said precisely the opposite. By continually stating that I support the Jews at Jamnia, you are being dishonest as you were in the above referred to thread when you said " I for one have made my point and will not discuss this issue again."
So, here we are, rehashing what has already been addressed and getting nowhere. You have your authorities you trust. I trust the Holy Spirit to lead me. I trust Christ when He spoke of the Scriptures to have known that there were books that were considered Scripture. It isn't reading into anything to assume such. It is contra-logic to suggest otherwise. But go on your way. You don't see because you don't wish to see. I have made my point and can truly abide by the idea of not discussing the canon of Scripture with you again if you wish to renew your declaration from the previous post. If not, I don't find arguing with you very productive either. As long as you are going to say I have said things which I did not, I might as well bow out and allow you and your straw men to dance their little dance in peace.