Replies

Despite being many times corrected as in threads linked here, along with the main one , you are dealing with a poster who is one of the RCs whose resortion to rants (followed by one of two pictures) has rendered him to be one you cannot have an objective intelligent exchange with, and simply continues to posts the same fallacies after being refuted.

Rather than Protestantism rendering Holy Spirit to be imperfect based upon the premise that the Holy Spirit did not protect Scripture from the inclusion of error, He can be seen doing just that, as there simply was no infallible indisputable canon until after Luther's death, and the fact is that scholarly dispute about books continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Thus by the time the enlarged RC canon was made binding, the Prot. Bible with its ancient OT canon had been printed in the common tongue.

Yet an infallible magisterium was never necessary to recognize and est. writings as being of God, nor does even being the instrument and steward of Scripture mean such magisterium is infallible.

In addition, the Vulgate was not uniform in all its editions and contained errors, and Trent did not specify which edition was to be used, and also was corrected more than once, Trent ordering one itself with the fewest possible faults, leading to the disastrous Vulgata Sixtina , which may have gotten the pope killed, and a coverup of his erroneous work ensued. And Rome's present Bibles have their own Catholic critics.

Meanwhile, to be consistent with himself, Rashputin can charge the EOs with rendering Holy Spirit to be imperfect since the canon generally held by EOs is larger than that of Rome.

The idea that Luther with his non-binding canon removed books from an infallible indisputable canon is simply a fabrication RCs love to parrot, as is the idea that we follow him as a pope. And which refutation Rashputin has been shown, but would not look at.

Which includes arguments regarding the Septuagint, for as has been substantiated, the evidence is contrary to the LXX of the time of Christ containing the apocrypha, among other problems with the LXX argument.

And the Lord enjoined obedience to the scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) except where they deviated from Scripture, and never corrected them for rejecting the apocrypha, while Lk. 24:44 best indicates conformity to the tripartite 22 book (=39) canon, and impugns the argument for the Lord's sanction of the apocrypha.

And as also has been said, the logic behind rejecting the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) due to their rejection of the apocrypha as Scripture, also means we should reject all they held. And yet, as said, it is actually Rome that is most like the Pharisees, with the magisterium being supreme.

..the Pharisees introduced rites in the Temple which originated in popular custom and were without foundation in the Law. Such was the water-procession of the people, on the night of Sukkot, from the Pool of Siloam, ending with the libation of water in the morning and the final beating of the willow-trees upon the altar at the close of the feast. .. For the decision of their Scribes,... they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). ...They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). ..Nothing could have been more loathsome to the genuine Pharisee than Hypocrisy....It is such types of Pharisees that Jesus had in view when hurling his scathing words of condemnation against the Pharisees, whom he denounced as "hypocrites," calling them "offspring of vipers"...Exactly so are hypocrites censured in the Midrash..— http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees