Oh, and your little tidbit about the Book of Daniel? The problem is that Jerome specifically mentions the portions of the Book of Daniel that are rejected by Protestants. Here’s the full quote:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us
Also:
Also, he writes: “Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’” Not according to you; that’s Sirach he’s not only calling scripture, but using to base a doctrinal assertion on.
He also calls Baruch a prophet: “I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death, [Ez 18:23] And those of Baruch ,’Arise, arise, O Jerusalem, [Baruch 5:5] And many other proclamations made by the trumpet of such prophets.”
In fact, dozens of times, Jerome cites as scripture — and bases theological arguments on — the deuterocanonical books. So why refer solely to the portions of Daniel than Luther left on the cutting room floor? Because those were specifically the ones he was charged with considering non-canonical.
None of this however, justifies Luther’s rejection of the other books I’ve mentioned, but serves only as a distraction from the larger point.
Must you trouble me with irrelevant and nonsensical comments? Jerome’s words I provided are not from Daniel, nor do they touch on them. This is the second time you attributed my quotes as from Daniel, when the references on the canon are from two different works. Why you accuse me of an argument I have not provided, I suppose, is the only way you can get out of it. And, aye, I need not repeat them; their words stand on their own. Evidently, you project your repititious nature on me. As for the silly comment on Athanasius, I said his canon was more protestant than catholic. Do take the time to read my posts before barking.