“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.
“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.”
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.
“Here are the links you ignored:”
Now you’re accusing me of ignoring things you never posted to me?!?
“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.”
I never claimed to have read the book, and I’m not about to go buy it and read it just because you seem enamored with it. The fact is, all the really relevant sources as to what the churches believed in ancient times about the canon are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN because they are centuries or millenia old, so there really is no need to be focusing on your favorite amazon page when it comes to this subject.
“He is not critiquing Orthodox doctrine. He is upholding it. What he is critiquing is latter day heretical Orthodox doctrine.”
Bwahahaha! This as fine example of pretzel logic as I’ve ever seen. So the heretic who left the Orthodox church, and you, a non-Orthodox, get to decide what Orthodox doctrine is, instead of the actual authorities and members of the Orthodox church. Sure, that sounds legit.
You repeat, “My point is the same and is still irrefutable”. Your self righteous pride will be your undoing. May God have mercy upon you.
What are matt1618’s qualifications? His links didn’t work for his home page.
HMMMmmm...
To ignore a link or ignore an ECF?
What to do...
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.