Pope Bluntly Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion

lol, "Scripture Alone" bites the the dust as the dodging and weaving contnues.

"Another argument from silence, which RCs often rely on, . . ."

How about this silence, why do you claim to believe II Timothy 3:16 when you twist it to pretend it "proves" the doctrine of Sola Yourselfa but ignore that same verse when it's read in contex and proves my point?

II Timothy 3:15 identifies the Scripture 3:16 is talking about as being the Scripture Timothy has known since his youth. The Scripture Timothy knew from his you included the books you throw in the garbage otherwise the anti-Christ Pharisees you obey and pay homage to couldn't have made a big deal of removing them at their little Tupperware party when there was no authority for them to do so.

That's Bible Manipulating, not "Bible believing", and it's absolutely not "Scripture Alone" since it's a clear case of superimposing a preconcepion on Scripture rather than accepting Sceipture that doesn't fit a personal preference.

Superimposing a reflection of ones' Self onto Scripture is not the same thing as accepting Scripture as the inerrent Word of God. It is the epitome of elevating the Self above His Word and in doing so worshiping Self and Self Alone.

Do not make this thread 'about' individual Freepers, that is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Strictly for the sake of clarification, how is my use of “you” in #101 any different than the “Your conclusion . . .” directed at me in #91?

lol, "Scripture Alone" bites the the dust as the dodging and weaving contnues.

"Another argument from silence, which RCs often rely on, . . ."

How about this silence, how can someone who cites II Timothy 3:16 as fact when they want to twist it to pretend it "proves" the doctrine of Sola Yourselfa but ignore that same verse when it's read in contex and proves my point?

II Timothy 3:15 identifies the Scripture 3:16 is talking about as being the Scripture Timothy has known since his youth. The Scripture Timothy knew from his youth included the books those who only accept the anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture throw in the garbage. Were that not the case, anti-Christ Pharisees such folks obey and pay homage to couldn't have made a big deal of removing them at their little Tupperware party when there was no authority for them to do so.

That's Bible Manipulating, not "Bible believing", and it's absolutely not "Scripture Alone" since it's a clear case of superimposing a preconcepion on Scripture rather than accepting Sceipture that doesn't fit a personal preference.

Superimposing a reflection of ones' Self onto Scripture is not the same thing as accepting Scripture as the inerrent Word of God. It is the epitome of elevating the Self above His Word and in doing so worshiping Self and Self Alone.

The "you twist it to pretend" puts the focus on the individual Freeper and his motive whereas "your conclusion" puts the focus on the result of reasoning.

The former could provoke an inflammatory reply whereas the second shouldn't, i.e. the reply should be focused on the reasoning leading to the conclusion.

I see, and “Reiterating your rant . . .” is also fine.

how can someone who cites II Timothy 3:16 as fact when they want to twist it to pretend it "proves" the doctrine of Sola Yourselfa A false premise, as 2 Tim. 3:16 does not prove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but uniquely affirms Scripture as being wholly inspired of God, unlike any other objective body of truth claims.

Proof for SS is based on the fact that it is abundantly evidenced to be the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and materially provides for recognizing writings as Scripture, versus others, and thus for a canon. And for the church, etc.

The Scripture Timothy knew from his youth included the books those who only accept the anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture throw in the garbage.

Once again you are asserting what you cannot prove, while the evidence weighs contrary to it. What is termed Scripture in the NT is not the apocrypha.

Were that not the case, anti-Christ Pharisees such folks obey and pay homage to couldn't have made a big deal of removing them

Evidence indicates this was due to Christians adding apocryphal writings to the LXX, with the earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them dating from the 4th Century.

As Beckwith states, among others,

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)

And if you are going to argue that Timothy read the apocrypha as Scripture based on the LXX, then you need to deal with the Psalms of Solomon and Psalm 151 found in some copies of the Septuagint, which is not a uniform body in any case.

Meanwhile, as said, you also have to condemn those whom you call Catholics but who rejected the apocrypha, whole or in part.

The rest of your rant is based upon a false presupposition of Roman supremacy, which is where unholy presumption is supremely exampled. But as you blindly defend her and flail away at dissent, further attempts at reasonable exchange and objective analysis are not warranted.

As expected the "Sola Yourselfa" crowd always begins with some variation of, "that's what Scripture says, but that's not what it means".

Telling such folks the Truth of Christ just hardens their hearts by giving the spirit that influences them another opportunity to provide them little positive ego strokes, especially those folks who behave like a little Furby named Cry Daddy. They want to be their own religion of Self so let them swallow their own poison.

Matthew 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

A denial of the deity of Christ is part and parcel of the fantasy of "Scripture Alone" since it is a fantasy that always eventually leads to accepting a heresy within which is a denial of the deity of Christ, whether those who profess "Scripture Alone" realize they're accepting that denial or not. Some such folks have the sort of ego that really enjoys rewriting Scripture, even words from the very mouth of Christ Himself, in order feed to ego of the Most High and Holy Self they worship. Others simply do not realize what they're accepting and have been blinded by a strong delusion sufficiently to not recognize the heresy intrinsic to what they accept.

In either case:

Titus 3:10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Titus 3:11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, "I never knew you" from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God. Unless and until such an individual surrenders to Christ showing them the Truth in the Scriptures is just throwing pearls before swine.

When you can actually form an argument rather than a rant that is based upon the false assertion that Rome is the one true church, and which ignores my refutation of that, then you can get back to me.

Luke 6:46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?