It is you who fail to see that the problem can be with humans, who will interpret things contrary to even the most obvious intent of the writers. Thus pornography and sodomy is held as constitutional.
My point being that there are just as many who stand in unison to dispute the conclusions of the people of your creed, for example, the Protestsnts.
Indeed there is dispute, as this is a test, for while in many things there can be limited disagreement, the real division in the major ones overall is usually due to the exaltation of men as incontestable authorities, and or another source held as equal to Scripture.
Do you really think prayer to departed saints is exampled or taught in Scripture? (You misinterpreted me as being a Catholic.) Or that God has wives?
And compared to the Catholics, they have added and removed books from their bibles, too, just as the former chose by committee to do the same, centuries prior.
While the canon was generally settled in Catholicism, it was only after Luther's death that it was indisputably settled, and he has ancient and current support for rejecting apocryphal books.
And which are relatively obscure, more so if they were not read in Mass, while the enduring popularity of our 66 books is due to their power among the living. Classics are not by decree.
Good night.
I’m only replying so that you don’t fall under the assumption that you’ve addressed the issue at hand with your conjecture and personal-interpretation based comments.
From your earlier reply:
“...most obvious intent of the writers...”
Most “obvious”? To whom? You? Then why the dispute? Like I said, personal interpretation. Excusable because the Constitution is the work of fallible humans. Was slavery unconstitutional when the Constitution was drafted?
“Do you really think prayer to departed saints is exampled or taught in Scripture? (You misinterpreted me as being a Catholic.) Or that God has wives?”
Who are you to question them? They (Catholics) have history and popularity to justify their claims, just as you plead popularity as a substitute for genuine truth in the end of your prior reply.
“While the canon was generally settled in Catholicism, it was only after Luther’s death that it was indisputably settled, and he has ancient and current support for rejecting apocryphal books.”
LOL at the arrogance of personal judgment.
Indisputably settled? Hahaha! So the Catholics surrendered to Luther? And no new factions broke loose and formed after Luther? The myriad clans and cults under the Protestant umbrella undermine your claims.
You, sir, are hilarious in your defense of delusion.