Wow. I've never run into another Freeper that actually admitted they couldn't be reasoned with if you didn't respect their vanity.
Is that self-effacing honesty, or lack of recognition?
It is pointless anyway, as there is little (I would say "no") standing for your position in the Scriptures
Uhm...what part of the Cana narrative are you not getting? Is that not Scripture?
...and you have already determined to rely upon your traditions... Those same traditions having no weight with me whatsoever.
Okay, so scratch reason, Scripture, and tradition. This is getting tough. There's not much left besides "entertainment."
You will be subjected to the Protestant "insistence that Scripture is the only yardstick of validity", by me and my fellows- A position that offers you no foundation. So why bother?
Hardly, in the final analysis it comes down to which Scriptures you (third person) like, and which you don't.
Jesus only mentions being "born again" twice in the Gospel of John while He mentions eating His Flesh five times, but for some reason Protestants proclaim the former, but ignore the latter. Why?
It would seem that for all the fuss over "traditions of men" the only sticking point is whose traditions, and which men.
No, I was implying that those who cannot confine themselves to polite debate, those who would use blunt clubs like sarcasm and condescension against their opponent, have usually done so because their ability to reason has fallen short of the natural ability which others possess. While I can sympathize with such a lack of facility, debates of this nature are unproductive.
Is that self-effacing honesty, or lack of recognition?
I would suppose the latter, though not in me.
Uhm...what part of the Cana narrative are you not getting? Is that not Scripture?
It certainly is, but when viewed without the bias presented in the Catholic tradition, the Wedding at Cana shows no evidence of what you propose is there. I am sure it can be bent to prop up such a thought, though not without an outside source.
Hardly, in the final analysis it comes down to which Scriptures you (third person) like, and which you don't.
The Apocrypha (which I am familiar with, btw) aside, we use the same Scripture. It is the tradition that is in the way. And just so we're clear, I, and many of my fellows do the very same on the Protestant side of the aisle. I have largely rejected Calvin, Wesley, and Luther, whom you all seem to feel are in the way of reconciliation. If anything, the Protestant Reformation did not go far enough.
Jesus only mentions being "born again" twice in the Gospel of John while He mentions eating His Flesh five times, but for some reason Protestants proclaim the former, but ignore the latter. Why?
It is not ignored, it is interpreted differently. Circumcision of the heart is also mentioned throughout the New Testament, yet I have never met a Christian that has insisted it is to be performed physically. Rightly divided, after all, if you would pardon the pun.
It would seem that for all the fuss over "traditions of men" the only sticking point is whose traditions, and which men.
I am of a mind that the only traditions that can rightly be attended to are those found to have foundation within the Scripture itself, and never the other way around. A Protestant idea, I admit.