You didn’t even get out of the gate before you added and twisted to what the poster said, which they didn’t say. Rather you took a shot to indirectly make a statement...”It’s not a matter of Holy Tradition being superior to Scripture”...which they never stated. And somehow Scripture didn’t warrent a ‘Holy’ just tradition. Humm-mmm...very interesting.
Further... you twisted/reversed the order the poster used giving scripture second place to tradition. Not to mention adding ‘Holy’ to tradition should somehow make tradition more than it is. Amazing.
There is another who did likewise in the garden with Eve.
Strawmen.
The first and last resort of someone who has no argument against what was posted.
Tell you what pal, why don't you ask wf, the person I to whom was responding, whether or not he believes that I intentionally misrepresented what he said. He and I have discussed theological matters for years here and have never, to the best of my knowledge, ever had anything less than complete respect for each other. If he thinks I intentionally misrepresented what he said, it will be the first time he thought that. "Not to mention adding ‘Holy’ to tradition should somehow make tradition more than it is. Amazing."
Holy Tradition, as opposed to tradition, is a term used by The Church to designate something other than simple tradition. You may disagree but I do know how to use the words my people have used for at 1800 years.
"There is another who did likewise in the garden with Eve."
Nonsense.
I tend to believe it is reflexive rather than intentional. When they have to defend their denial of Scripture as THE rule of the faith it's best to change the discussion points.