You have both made a valiant attempt to disprove the Immaculate Conception based on Scripture. Several posts back, I raised the question:
"Where does the Bible teach that doctrine is only to come from the Bible?"
There was no response. Why? Because any verse of Scripture that you claim is teaching that the Bible is the only source of doctrine (i.e., Sola Scriptura; and we are assuming inerrant doctrinal teaching), means that that verse was teaching Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians who were alive at the time the supposed verse was written. It would also be teaching Sola Scriptura to Christians of today, since the same interpretion given to the first century Christians must be the same interpretation for Christians today, being that one cannot have opposite interpretations of the same verse. It is an accepted fact, among both Catholics and Protestants, that the apostles and prophets gave oral instruction to the first century Christians, in addition to written instruction contained in the Bible. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that this oral revelation to the people was to be considered the very words of God himself. This is also why in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul told these same Thessalonians to preserve the oral instruction, along with the written.
How can the Bible be teaching the first century Christians that only the Bible is their inerrant source of authority, if at the same time, oral revelation was still being given to them?? You can't claim that there is only one source of authority (the Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (the Bible and oral revelation). Logically, the Bible cannot teach Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians. If it did, it would be contradicting itself, as well as the oral revelation that was still being given. This is the trap of Sola Scriptura, and it is an inescapable trap.
According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even Martin Luther, the author of 'Sola Scriptura', realized that. Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. That is why there are so many christian churches, in disagreement with each yet all claiming to proclaim the truth.
Hence, my comment: Since Scripture is not the final authority, the Church wins.. The Church, according to Scripture, is the pillar of truth.
NY:"Where does the Bible teach that doctrine is only to come from the Bible?"
NY:There was no response. Why?
It was answered. Maybe you missed it with you being the only RC trying to respond.
In summary, what other Inerrant Word of GOD exists. If you place oral "tradition" as an equal you are subjecting yourself to whatever the political, social and religious pressures of the day are. The written word is much harder to manipulate especially if it is widespread.
ICor.4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false.
How do you know anything your church teaches is true?
Hence, my comment: Since Scripture is not the final authority, the Church wins.. The Church, according to Scripture, is the pillar of truth.
I am thankful that your Pope has killed ecumenism. It is beyond me why Christians would want to trust an institution of man more than the Word of GOD