Now here again you try to finesse things, away from your own guilt in the matter.
That's a mass of illogical attempt towards hair splitting that doesn't successfully split any. His "feelings" were how he did it? Typed it up with emotion there did he?
No. The assertion which boils down an individual's reason for rejecting Apocrypha to be on grounds of emotion is to attribute motive for them doing so. You did that. Plainly. Irrefutably. Own up to it.
Follow the links I provided. Read. The "early Church" did NOT "insist" the books here in contention (including the one you quoted from) were Scripture fully on par with the rest of the NT. When there was some acceptance, it was often acknowledged (down through the centuries even) that although some writings were fit to read from within Church setting, those were "ecclesiastical" writings, thus not infallibly inspired.
Your argumentative statement [above italicized] is like a snake swallowing it's own tail. You lose, again.
When are you going to give up, and convert?
Once again you failed to show in any way that I was actually wrong.
“Now here again you try to finesse things, away from your own guilt in the matter.”
That sounds much more like a statement about attributing motive than what I posted. I had no guilt because what I said was absolutely correct. Thus, not only were you wrong, but you’re also clearly being hypocritical.