I think that ZC has a good point in what he’s saying: if you solely read the Scriptures with absolutely no consideration for apostolic tradition or, for that matter any other pre-existing dogma from the Catholics i.e.,a truly fundamentalist hermeneutic, his conclusions are very reasonable. Not trying to recruit for him, of course, but out is what it is.
I'm sorry, but you are ignoring the issue as well.
The whole point of this argument is modern liberal Protestant Biblical criticism which is implicitly endorsed by the article at the top of the thread and by the PBC in post #43. You are all dancing around this and ignoring to the point that I begin to suspect you all of dishonesty. I must admit it is quite frustrating (which doubtless amuses you).
Furthermore, I do not subscribe to "sola scriptura," as you well know. I am attacking modern liberal criticism and you're defending an oral interpretive tradition. We have no quarrel there other than in the oral interpretive traditions we believe in.
Kindly quote any church father or medievial scholastic who subscribed to modern liberal Protestant Biblical criticism.
I hope you will see fit to call off this dishonesty.