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.
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.