>>772873
>Okay my personal experience is that you are a Liar.
"You're wrong because you're wrong" is not an argument.
>and I further support this based that you can't find any credible evidence at all.
You have no reason to think I am credible evidence, since I am a random Internet stranger. Nonetheless, I did explain why I make this claim - because I have already had discussions with people who are actually concerned by this subject. I invite you to do the same before you pass definitive judgement on whether I have made myself an enemy of God or not, by being dishonest.
I am also not convinced that "It seems obvious to me" is a sufficient argument to counter "I have dealt with people who live in that environment and can speak about it". Why is it "obvious" to you that 1 Enoch is not canonical to Ethiopian Catholicism? Is it because it is not part of the Roman Catholic canon? Will you also claim that I lie if I say the Melkites and the Ukrainian Catholics have 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras in their canon?
>The Ethiopian Catholic Church has never declared it as part of their Canon. That's my evidence. My evidence is that there is not a single document stating this.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", etc. As a Christian, you should know better than this. This is the exact sort of argument that atheists use against our religion, so you may want to take a different approach here.
>You must not be very intelligent if you can't understand the argument.
I admit I am unintelligent.
>You're making a claim with zero evidence.
Does every claim need immediate and tangible evidence? If I say that I have met with so and so and we have done this or that, or if I say that this or that event happened at church, or that my priest came back from a trip and brought back interesting things, would you immediately accuse me of spreading falsehood because I have no proof of this?
Or then would you say that the contents of a church's biblical canon is a more sensitive subject, and you would say that there is no reason 1 Enoch would be canonical to the Ethiopian Catholics? But then, why? What makes this more nonsensical than saying that 1 Enoch is canonical to the Ethiopian Orthodox?
>My view is more credible because there isn't a shred of evidence that there are Unicorns in Ethiopia. Just like there isn't a shred of evidence that Enoch is in the Ethiopian Catholic Canon.
Do you realize here that you criticize me for unilaterally stating A, while you yourself unilaterally state its contrary? It is not because you claim the polar opposite of what someone claims without evidence that it becomes evidence for your own counter-claim. It is widely accepted that unicorns do not exist, because their origins are very likely mythological and no one has discovered a unicorn, living or dead, and brought back proof of it. The Gospel of Wikimakala is something you literally just made up on the spot for the sake of an argument. It is absurd to compare both of these to the claim that the Ethiopian Catholics do in fact share the same canon as its Oriental Orthodox counterpart, just as every other Eastern Catholic church is allowed to retain the canon it had before its reunion with Rome.
While I will not theorize on which outcome is more "realistic", I have at least supported my claim with an anecdote. The only support for your counter-claim is literally that you disagree with me and cannot find something about it on Google right now.