And you, can stow your condescending tone elsewhere. We are not going to convince each other. I merely responded that it is totally inaccurate to state that Luther removed any portion of Scripture. He did not. Athanasius' Easter letter in 367 recognized what the church was universally using. The Council of Carthage in 397 confirmed the list.
Third, your source from an Episcopal bishop is rejected. The only work that is used in most theological universities today, coming from the Episcopalians, come from John Stott. I know of no other. After all, we are talking about a denomination that replaced the Bible with the Book of Common Prayer from the double-minded Thomas Cranmar in 1549. I have some insight on this, as my uncle is a Bishop of a major US city: and he doesn't know anything about the Bible. It is indeed painful to watch him fumble though it. This is the same so-called church that debates sexuality without using the Bible. Hence, you get homosexual bishops. But if you want to use a reference and avoid primary sources, rock on. I can tell you this: You will get an "F" in college while doing so. Never ignore the primary sources. You wouldn't do it when investigating anything else. It's illogical.
I won't get into the internal and historical evidence, because it is obvious you have not spent one hour in Bible college (you can look up the reasons why the apocrypha was rejected); but a Catholic church ruling in 1584 on a 2nd canon, is folly in itself. Do you know what canon means? Once you look that up, try fitting that into a logical proposition. God changed His mind, and added a second standard? Which isn't another standard at all because: (1) no apostle or NT author quotes from it, (2) it adds zero to doctrine, (3) it was already rejected for centuries prior to 1549, (the Holy Spirit was asleep for centuries for that to be believed), (4) you can't squeeze it into OT canon because the Jews never accepted it, and Jesus didn't authenticate it (I'll let you look up the verse where Jesus authenticates the entire OT), and (4) it is of such poor quality when compared to other books/letters in terms of doctrine, edification, and overall usefulness. No self respecting theologian hangs out in Wikipedia. Rather, the argumentation whether or not to accept the apocrypha as Scripture, is well documented in such places as libraries. If you are too lazy to research, I don't feel that is my problem. I already know the Catholic arguments. They don't make sense to me, and I really don't spend much time with a church that chose to use the issue of salvation to hold over the heads of the poor, in order to raised money (here's looking at you Johann Tetzel); Listen to the voices of your dear dead relatives and friends, beseeching you and saying, 'Pity us, pity us. We are in dire torment from which you can redeem us for a pittance.' Do you not wish to?
Nor will I willingly follow a church that murdered legitimate followers of Christ just because they memorized Scripture, or otherwise, chose to follow the Christian religion that was purely based plain language in the Bible-- and not hidden in a veil of Latin, outside of the people's language: So that they could come into direct relationship with God, instead of being put under subjugation and told what to believe via rote religiosity.
If you want to take a stand on that position and state that all other churches are not the authentic church. Rock on. You have liberty. And then you meet Christ face to face, and answer to Him.
That's the end of this conversation. Good day, sir.
Because you don't have any, and I gave you plenty.
What "reasons" the Protestants have to reject one part of the Holy Scripture or another does not concern me. The fact is, there was no Bible since 4 century on that did not include the Deuterocanon, except when the so-called "reformers" started printing their own.
You find my tone condescending, don't post anything that I can read and have a right to respond to.