“It is recognition. that unless Protestants can produce the OT prophecy to Simeon from Luke 2, their understanding of “The Word of God” stands falsified.”
I just read Luke 2 and failed to see what you could possibly be saying, or even arguing for. I don’t like it when other people make me do work to figure out their own arguments, so please quote the scripture and explain what you mean, thoroughly, so I don’t argue against phantoms.
I notice you also dodged the other part of my post. Since you didn’t address it, I have no reason to take your arguments seriously, as it doesn’t appear that Roman tradition is, in fact, the “Word of God.”
I didn't dodge it: I ignored it. I consider it on par with "trutherism."
I just read Luke 2 and failed to see what you could possibly be saying, or even arguing for. I don’t like it when other people make me do work to figure out their own arguments, so please quote the scripture and explain what you mean, thoroughly, so I don’t argue against phantoms.
Simeon testifies, under the sway of the Holy Spirit (according to Holy Writ itself), his knowledge he would see the Christ before death was according to God's Word. Unless one can cite the OT prophesy informing him of same, "The Word of God" is comprised of MORE than that which is contained in "The Bible." Therefore, the doctrine of discounting the authority of anything NOT contained in the Bible is falsified.