Jo kus, I say in all truthfullness that I have stopped reading your post after this comment. While I credit you with the ability to conduct discussions in an atmosphere of learning, your continued insistance on telling me what my point of view is, what conclusions I've drawn, and why they are inconsistant is rude, arrogant, and unnecessary. And in light of the fact that you are capable of open and productive discussion without telling me what I'm thinking, I can only assume you intentionally make statements like you've opened your last post with to provoke a reaction. I don't have the time, nor the desire engage you in that type of discussion. Instead, I will continue to study the readily available facts of history that exist outside of the bias and interpretation of any church. After I have completed that study to my satisfaction, I will be happy to share with you what conclusions I've drawn.
I have sent you a long letter detailing the research that I have come up with. You will find the evidence is clear that:
1. With the exception of Jerome, NO ONE mentions that the Deuts are not Scripture or inspired.
2. As time moves on, more and more of the Deuts are explicitly mentioned as being Scripture.
3. Those Fathers who leave off some of the Deuts, such as Athanasius and Cyril of Jersualem, explicitly then go on to name a few of these as Scripture. This indicates that the definition of canon is NOT the same as inspired Scripture, as we hold today.
4. Based on the evidence, there is no evidence to assert, as you so boldly did, that the Church were either liars, or were poorly informed. These statements were made before the research was done.
"...your continued insistance on telling me what my point of view is..."
You have made this charge to me before, but it doesn't stick. Why? It is not necessary to explicitly make a statement to determine what you actually believe. When one holds inconsistent or contradictory positions, as I have pointed out repeatedly, one can assuredly draw the conclusions that I have made.
I have asked on various occasions for clarification on such contradictions, but you refuse to answer. Ignoring these implications only has lead me to believe the obvious that I see in your writings. It is unfortunate that our discussion ended as it did. I think it is because you saw the writing on the wall and do not want to admit the obvious - your strict requirements of what is an OT Deut to you will fail when applied to the NT Deut! You continue to ignore this, even now! I have already done the studying, and you will find that there was not universal acceptance for the NT Deuts. So again, for the umpteenth time, what is your basis, besides philosophy, for this inconsistent behavior? You keep telling me that "I'm drawing conclusions not mentioned", etc., but really, am I? Do the research. You have had the time. What have you come up with?
"I can only assume you intentionally make statements like you've opened your last post with to provoke a reaction. I don't have the time, nor the desire engage you in that type of discussion"
I have no intentions on provoking a reaction. Why would I want to sit and write for 2-3 hours with someone I already have disengaged conversation with earlier? Send me an e-mail once you discover what I have been telling you from the beginning - the Church calls particular books "Deuterocanonical" (OT or NT) for a reason. You will not discover anything different regarding the OT vs the NT. Your charge against the Church of 380-400 is totally false and by not adding the 7 books to your Bible, you are inconsistent regarding the NT Deuterocanonicals, books determined as Scripture at the SAME COUNCILS!
Rather than charging me with "presuming to know what you believe" and so on, prove your consistency. At least Luther wanted to remove the NT Deuts as well. Which will you do?
Regards