Replies

At this point, you’re just arguing semantics and repeating yourself instead of actually making arguments.

As for that link you keep posting (just to a bookstore, not even an actual source or citation), I doubt it’s relevant. After all, if I posted a book by a heretical ex-Catholic critiquing Catholic doctrine, you would not accept that as a valid source, so why should we accept your book by a heretical ex-Orthodox critiquing Orthodox doctrine?

“At this point, you’re just arguing semantics and repeating yourself instead of actually making arguments.”

My point is the same and is still irrefutable: All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue. All of that is irrefutable. You can’t refute any of it. Failure in argumentation is your only option.

At this point all you’re doing is complaining about semantics and not showing that I am wrong in any way, shape or form. That will continue, undoubtedly, at this rate.

“As for that link you keep posting (just to a bookstore, not even an actual source or citation),”

Here are the links you ignored:

No. http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/the-complete-bible-why-catholics-have-seven-more-books/

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html

http://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html

http://shamelesspopery.com/st-jerome-on-the-deuterocanon/

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

Time to put up or shut up. What will it be?

“I doubt it’s relevant.”

It is. Most importantly, however, is the fact that you just demonstrated that you have never read the book but insist you know what you’re talking about. Thanks for proving that your statement about knowing about the subject is untrue.

“After all, if I posted a book by a heretical ex-Catholic critiquing Catholic doctrine, you would not accept that as a valid source, so why should we accept your book by a heretical ex-Orthodox critiquing Orthodox doctrine?”

He is not critiquing Orthodox doctrine. He is upholding it. What he is critiquing is latter day heretical Orthodox doctrine. If you can’t tell the difference, then you show again that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, Soloviev was given last rites by a Russian Orthodox priest. He was NEVER ex-Orthodox.

You will continue to show that what I said was irrefutably true.

V: “All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue.”

B: Nonsense, Protestants include them in their Bibles as well, they just don’t hold them to be on the same level as the Old Testament, a view that was entirely acceptable in the church at large until AFTER the Protestants departed from the Catholic church.

I do not see vladimir998's point refuted, namely that
"The standard I employed was simply this: ALL THE ANCIENT CHURCHES recognized books that modern Protestants do not."

I will grant that the original KJV did at least contain the deutercanonical books. A Protestant Bible is any Christian Bible translation or revision that comprises 39 books of the Old Testament (according to the Jewish Hebrew Bible canon, sometimes known to non-Protestants as the protocanonical books) and the 27 books of the New Testament for a total of 66 books.

This practice was standardized among Protestants following the 1825 decision by the British and Foreign Bible Society.[1] This is often contrasted with the 73 books of the Catholic Bible, which includes 7 deuterocanonical books according to Roman Catholic Canon Law 825, as a part of the Old Testament.[2]