You justified that by calling what he said heresy.
That meant you are among the Christians he’s referring to.
Sorry RET, but you tipped your hand.
Well that’s not what I said:
“Because Paul recast the meaning of the Old Testament;”
While Protestants edited the Bible, Paul did not. He just re-framed how the story was interpreted.
And yes, Catholicism, Apostolic Tradition, teaches you that. History says this is correct, so I make no apologies in saying it.
A Jewish Biblical scholar knows more than Christians how the Jews approach scripture.
That’s common sense.
You tried to say that there was no difference between how Christians and Jews interpret the Old testament.
That is within context. If you weren’t saying that, feel free to say so.
There’s Orthodox, and Anglicans. Pretty sure they do the same thing.
And Catholics outnumbers all the other Christians combined, btw.
“Sola Scriptura” is a minority position among Christians.
Seems like anti-scripture to me. With Christ calling Peter his rock, and that what he said would be bound both on Earth and in Heaven.
Seemed authoritative continuity was pretty important to Christ.
But hey, you do you.
hearsay - gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth.
This isn’t word of mouth, this is recorded, and it was done in an official context.
If it was relevant, something like this would be admissible in the court of law.
Sorry RET, but you’ll have to swallow your pride and admit you fouled up on this one.
Be honest about this, and move on. If you can’t be honest over when you make mistakes, why would I listen to any commentary you want to point at me?
If your words are pathological, that’s how I’m going to judge them. Anyone in my position would do the same.