“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.
“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,”
Perhaps some Anglicans do, but what other Protestant group does on a regular basis? I own a Lutheran Study Bible. They are not in there. I own at least 20 or so KJVs and only two of them have them. I own several NIVs. None of them have them. I own Bibles produced by well known Evangelicals like MacArthur and the Blackaby family. They don’t have them. I owned several old RSVs. None of them have them. When they added the Deuterocanonicals and Apocryphal books that came out as a special edition for study. I have at least 3 or 4 copies of that. What is distinctive about it is that it is DISTINCTIVE. In other words, it was NOT standard practice for a Protestant publishing effort. Again, you seem to have no clue as to what you’re talking about.
“a view that was entirely acceptable in the church at large until AFTER the Protestants departed from the Catholic church.”
Not really. All anyone had to do was look at an earlier council.
“Now you’re accusing me of ignoring things you never posted to me?!?”
So you’re admitting you entered an argument without even bothering to read the earlier posts? Again and again you keep proving you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“I never claimed to have read the book,”
I never claimed you did. I said, “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.”
“and I’m not about to go buy it and read it just because you seem enamored with it.”
No, you would rather just keep posting even though you apparently know nothing about the subject.
“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.”
That’s not necessarily true. Breen might be in the public domain age wise: https://archive.org/details/generalintroduct00breeuoft but unless someone takes the time to read it he simply will have no idea what he is talking about. Let me guess: You’ve never read Breen either, right? It’s in the public domain, but if you haven’t read it, it’s still a closed book to you. No matter what is or isn’t in the public domain, if you haven’t read these books you still have no real idea of what you’re talking about. Also, if you knew what you were talking about you would know that Soloviev’s book is quite old and is in the public domain. You can read French, right Mr. Public Domain? https://archive.org/details/larussieetleglis00solo Oh, wait. It’s available in English too: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Solovyev—Russia_Universal_Church.pdf I’m sure you were all over that, right Mr. Public Domain?
“Bwahahaha! This as fine example of pretzel logic as I’ve ever seen.”
Where, in the public domain?
“So the heretic who left the Orthodox church,”
He never left.
“.. 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.”
In Soloviev’s case it’s more legit than anything you’ve done so far, Mr. Public Domain. Keep not reading and not learning. It suits you.
Oh, and by the way, put up or shut up. I said: 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, right? You can keep avoiding it I suppose.
If you actually make an attempt at a refutation, let me know.
I have never met Napoleon
but I plan to find the time...
[yes I do] 'Cuz he looked so fine
Upon that hill
They tell me he was lonely
he's lonely stillThose days are gone forever
Over a long time ago [oh yeah]