[A.J.Armitage]

LOL. Nice try. You raised the tangent, not me. I try to answer your query, and now it's my fault we are on your tangent? Give me a break.

I have a difficult time imagining what it is you think you're saying here. Maybe you mean that I, somehow, started diverting discussion from how Scripture plus other stuff stacks up by your own standards by which you criticize Scripture alone. But that would be silly. Or perhaps you mean that anything other than a panygeric to the rightness of all things Catholic is a "tangent".

But clearly, regardless of what you were trying to say, you were substituting a diversion (not merely a tangent) for an answer to my argument.

And quoting Luther on a doctrinal issue is "the standard anti-Protestant polemic of insulting Luther"? I had no idea that was verbotten.

Now, where did I say you couldn't attack historical Protestant figures? I'm not a Mormon, you know.

All I did was point out you reverted to one of the standard polemics instead of answering my argument.

There's no need to posit. Luther admitted it.

Drstevej has questioned this. We all await documentation.

Didn't prevent Luther from making an error? Never claimed it did. Never claimed it should. Never claimed it would. That nasty ol' free will business is always letting individuals go astray.

You don't think the leadership of the Catholic Church should prevent its priests and theology professors (and Luther was both) from falling into error? Yow!

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you said it or not; you need it to be true for your argument to hold up. It's not, so your argument doesn't. Remember, again, if the Bible plus other stuff can't keep people from falling into error and/or leaving, then you can't criticize the Bible by itself for failing to prevent people from falling into error and/or leaving. Well, you can, it just wouldn't do Catholicism any favors.

[polemikos]

I have a difficult time imagining what it is you think you're saying here.

Allow me to connect the dots for you:
A - in 923, you raise a question of Luther misunderstanding something unspecified.
B - in 930, I answer. Since my subject was sS, I give a specific on Luther's misunderstanding same.
C - in 935, you switch from sS to Luther's views on papal authority.
D - in 937, I refer you back to my answer in 930, indicating I had answered your original query of 923
E - in 941 you accuse of (1) being off topic and (2) "insulting Luther" and engaging in "anti-Protestant polemics"
F - in 946 I answer that (923-941) is your tangent (as A-E above clearly show).
G - In 950 you apparently feign ignorance of the sequence and accuse me of being silly.

Really now. Who is creating tangents and being silly here? Not me Boss.

But clearly, regardless of what you were trying to say, you were substituting a diversion (not merely a tangent) for an answer to my argument.

An argument? Where? All I have had from you so far is silly attempts to bait me with straw men.

Now, where did I say you couldn't attack historical Protestant figures?

Here is a perfect example of your tactics. I never said anything remotely like your statement. You offer up this straw man denial while ignoring my specific questions to you regarding your specific charge.

All I did was point out you reverted to one of the standard polemics instead of answering my argument.

Now there's chutzpah. You repeat your false accusation of 941 in a more generic form.

On the off chance you didn't read my response to your original false accusation, allow me to repeat myself:

And quoting Luther on a doctrinal issue is "the standard anti-Protestant polemic of insulting Luther"? I had no idea that was verbotten. Is quoting Luther on his doctrinal statements always considered an insult by Lutherans and/or other Protestants? Or just his statements that repudiate Lutheran/Protestant doctrines? What about Luther's statements that contain logical fallacies? Is there some cheatsheet somewhere that lists what I am allowed to quote and what I shouldn't quote? A little help here would be appreciated.

Try answering the questions. We'll get farther if you do that then with your silly attempts to try and avoid them.

You don't think the leadership of the Catholic Church should prevent its priests and theology professors (and Luther was both) from falling into error? Yow!

Straw Man Alert! I didn't say that, now did I?

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you said it or not;

What? A tacit admission that you've been trying to put words in my mouth? Who'da thunk it.

you need it to be true for your argument to hold up.

Again, not true.

This is quite tiresome. Please don't waste my time any more.