Well of course. You do exactly the same thing in deciding which saints to quote to make your points. There is nothing wrong with this, but we BOTH do it.
FK: "But as I posted to Joe recently, I find it absolutely amazing that in the 10,000 posts here and the 12,000 on the L&E thread that I have seen Apostolics quote from the Dueterocanonicals MAYBE 3 times altogether."
When two people discuss issues, they must meet on a point of common agreement. What good would it do to my point of view to quote a book that YOU do not accept as Scriptures? You would promptly deny that it had any force of argument. Thus, we Catholics and Orthodox condescend to your level of what is Scriptures so as to prove a theological point.
Well, we very much appreciate your condescension. :) However, the logic fails. Most obviously, you all post the Fathers to us ALL the time, knowing full well that they are not authority for us. I don't think any on my side have any problem at all with this. They are part of your authority and we respect that. We answer the same way as we would against, well, anything. If in your eyes Tradition is equal to scripture, then the OT Deuts would be equal to the Fathers. We would handle it the same way. Yet, NONE of you very learned Apostolics (no sarcasm), none, zip, zero, nada, quotes from any of the OT Deuts, that I have seen, except on the RAREST of occasions.
LOL!!!
Most obviously, you all post the Fathers to us ALL the time, knowing full well that they are not authority for us. Yet, NONE of you very learned Apostolics (no sarcasm), none, zip, zero, nada, quotes from any of the OT Deuts, that I have seen, except on the RAREST of occasions.
Absolutely correct. I find it interesting that our Catholic/Orthodox friends will pick and choose their quotes from the fathers that support their cause and ignore other text that doesn't. Protestants don't mind hearing quotes from the fathers because to us it's no different than any other writings. We may or may not agree with it. But then they accuse you of citing sources when it suits YOUR purpose!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
The same is with the creeds handed down from the "Chair of Peter". Keep in mind the Nicene Creed was developed well before the great Orthodox/Roman schism of 1000AD (give or take a few centuries) in which they excommunicated each other. Yet ask the Orthodox if they agree with the Nicene Creed and watch the fur fly.
(Digression-In fact, I wonder who would consider themselves in schism. Do the Orthodox feel the Catholics are wrong or visa versa?)
Fact is, this argument on the Dueterocanonicals is nothing more than a joke IMHO. The early fathers rarely quoted from them or used them in their writings. Frankly I have been reading through the very early writings and have yet to come across one. (I know they're out there, just haven't hit one yet.) They were never part of the LEGITIMATE Hebrew text.
While I have not followed this entire conversation, I never saw a response to the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Hebrew, nor have I seen any non-bias sources validating the Dueterocanonicals. I'd like to know why the Orthodox don't use the Latin Vulgate but I haven't received an answer on that. There is nothing that supports the contention of the Dueterocanonicals except Trent 1500 years after the fact. That's like saying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed in 1950 was believed by the early church fathers. They just never got around to writing about it.
And very rarely do they quote from Philemon or 2 John or Jude...
I guess using your mentality, we should also consider doing away with Nehemiah and Chronicles, because Jesus didn't quote from them, either...
Regards