[Cronos]

I have a different approach to authoritative moves such as "canon," so this is not a good argument to use with me. I accept as canon what everyone accepts (that being the most refined), but not because some authority ordains it is so, but rather, because it is the most agreed upon.

And yet, that was an argument used in the councils. Those "authorities" you refer to are none other than the authority of the community of believers, the Church as a whole.

If you lived in Bahrain in the 2nd century, going by that definition one would probably attest to the Gospel of Thomas as inspired canon. But it was rejected by The Church as a whole -- local churches may err but the entire communion of believers, The Church does not err (and to clarify, my usage of The Church indicates the community of believers, the common priesthood of believers, not just the magisterium or some council of bishops or presbyters/priests)

I look for the signature of His Prophecy in extant psuedapigraphal books, and consider them on that alone, along with the efficacy of the current extant text against an assumed original. Ok -- then why not include Maccabbees which is mostly historical or the Didache which, written in 70 AD approx is a Syriac manual, or the Acts of Paul and Theda which do not contradict (to my knowledge) what we consider canon?

There is truly no dispute -- why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?

[xone]

why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?

Arguing publicly with church (APWC) resulted in excommunication/death

APWC resulted in the loss of sovereignty.

APWC resulted foreigners in your lands.

All pretty good reasons, until finally the burden on the conscience became too great, and the worst consequences became bearable when considered against the pain the corruption was causing.

[roamer_1]

And yet, that was an argument used in the councils. Those "authorities" you refer to are none other than the authority of the community of believers, the Church as a whole.

No, the "authorities" were the hierarchy over the "Church as a whole" wherein the church in question was only that which was not already excluded.

The Church does not err (and to clarify, my usage of The Church indicates the community of believers, the common priesthood of believers, not just the magisterium or some council of bishops or presbyters/priests)

Not to promote rancor, but again, I must rigorously disagree.

Ok -- then why not include Maccabbees which is mostly historical or the Didache which, written in 70 AD approx is a Syriac manual, or the Acts of Paul and Theda which do not contradict (to my knowledge) what we consider canon?

Oh, I am not as insistent as my brethren in the disallowing of the Apocrypha. That it means "the hidden" is enough to garner my attention... Off hand, The Maccabees, Baruch, The Epistle of Jeremiah (Probably part of Baruch to you), and the Esdras all have great value to me, as well as other books from the psuedepigrapha - Enoch, Jasher, The Book of Jubilees (another from the Ethiopian canon I believe)...

As I said, I believe the signature of prophecy to be of the highest importance. The books I mentioned contain that signature, IMHO. It is their quality and provenance which cause me to deny them. Of the Apocrypha, particularly and over all, my main criticism is to do with the unquestionable "Hellenization" of the texts... The same reason the Hebrews refuse them, by and large.

There is truly no dispute -- why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?

The death of one's opponents, and the burning of their works as heresy tends toward that effect. It is that silence which is so damning.