In the context in which that exchange occurred, shouldn't it have been plain enough that it was the doctrines which vladimir998 was touching upon associating with those scriptures which Resett reacted towards calling those things "corruptions of scripture" in how those passages eventually came to be applied--- rather than those passages referenced themselves having been corrupted?
Since that is the sort of low-grade debate tactic being engaged in --- redefining others words by selective editing of them, showing either; failure to understand what Resetttozero was saying, of else deliberate change in order to misrepresent the intended meaning ---- why should anyone listen to what the two of you Roman Catholics have to say?
Why should anyone take either of you seriously?
It is for these types of exchanges -- where a persons says one thing --- but then it is turned into another to then be held up for ridicule --- which can make conversation on the religions forum be beyond tedious -- right into infuriating.
Is that all you guys have got? huh?
Shame on you both.
They wouldn’t have anything if they didn’t make strawmen to knock down.
The passages (John 19,, John 6, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11) teach what they do very plainly; the only way to square them with the Protestant set of superstitions is to discard them altogether. Which, effectively, is what Protestantism does.