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.
Gee, that's a pretty complex message to "imply." Are you sure you know what "imply" means?
Furthermore, you have this "polite debate" thing all wrong. You are only entitled to polite debate so long as you practice polite debate. As soon as it becomes clear the debate is actually a campaign, that is a constant restatement of one's position while gratuitiously dismissing the opposing view, any expectation of comity is laughable.
I would suppose the latter, though not in me.
Oh my! The "I know you are, but what am I," gambit.
How witty.
... but when viewed without the bias presented in the Catholic tradition, the Wedding at Cana shows no evidence of what you propose is there.
Of course it does; read the text! What it doesn't do is square with the bias of Protestant tradition, so a thourough exegesis of the text is studiously ignored.
It is not ignored, it is interpreted differently.
Why?
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.
Which is why I maintain you are engaged in a campaign: not a debate.