You wrote:
“Paul learned from Christ Himself? Not personally. Paul wasn’t converted until after the resurrection.”
So Christ did not reveal Himself to St. Paul? Acts 9:4. Acts 26:13–14. Galatians 1:15–17. 1 Corinthians 15:8–11.
“When Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:23 that he received of the Lord was he talking about the bread and the wine?”
He was talking about the Mass.
” Surely you weren’t speaking of direct teaching from Christ in person were you?”
St. Paul was. Again: Acts 9:4. Acts 26:13–14. Galatians 1:15–17. 1 Corinthians 15:8–11.
And St. Paul learned from the Church - not just Ananias, but from Peter: Galatians 1:18. Still, St. Paul received revelations from God (Galatians 2: 1-2) to confere with the Church on his preaching.
“With 2 Thessalonians 2:15 were you referencing the “by word or epistle” that Cyril of Jerusalem later agreed was “put in writing”? Let’s look at what he said. He is after all one of your church fathers isn’t he?”
Here is what he said:
“Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the holy Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4, 35, 350 A.D.)
After that, anything you say about Cyril and tradition is useless.
I suggest you see this so you don’t embarrass yourself again: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cyril.html
“It wasn’t until the 16th century at the Council of Trent that the Catholic Church stopped using scripture as it’s only authority.”
How long have you had that drug habit? Seriously, what you just suggested is so bizarre that it ranks right up there with denying the Holocaust or denying the moon landing. The Catholic Church never used ONLY scripture as its only authority. It couldn’t even if it wanted to. The Church existed BEFORE the New Testament. What you are suggesting is anachronistic and logically impossible.
“Are these types of invectives, pejoratives, and other attempts to demean or disparage the person you are debating a regular part of your personality?”
How exactly is asking you if you’ve ever read a verse a pejorative? Hos is saying you have no clue about a verse - and apparently you have no clue about it - a pejorative? If you can’t handle the truth, or how you hear about it, I suggest you leave this forum and take up basket weaving. Otherwise, gird your loins.
“I can’t find it in the fruits of the Spirit.”
Maybe you need a better relationship with the Holy Spirit. You certainly need to learn the Bible better.
Oh good grief. Yeah right. That’s why the rest of the chapter talking about the Last Supper.
After reading that site I’m going to agree with you and not debate Catholics much any more. With theology based in part on statements like “not one town ever ventured to make the claim that they had Mary’s bones” for the bodily assumption of Mary and having witnessed the Catholic apologists on this site and others I’ve come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is so far off it’s useless. I’m inclined to agree with those who believe that the Catholic Church is the church recorded in Revelation which those in that church are admonished to “come out of her”.