“I’m actually laughing at your choice of champion. You have chosen a Catholic Bishop... a Doctor of the Church... in some misguided attempt to take down the windmill of the faith. I’m simply showing you that you are misreading him to try to use him this way.”
To respond to your absurdities about Paul first:
But as to your arguments against Paul. They are silly, since Paul and the Apostles all believed themselves to be writing scripture:
2Pe_3:16 As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
There was no period of time, 400 years later, waiting for someone to decide that this was Holy writ. The Apostles believed that their teachings were utterly divine, and that their epistles were equal to the Old Testament. Again, Paul quoting Luke along side Moses:
1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
So when you claim that Paul was only speaking of the Old Testament, you reveal your ignorance. Paul is speaking of the 4 Gospels, all the epistles of his fellow Apostles, and his own writings!
Furthermore, the end of John does not actually claim that scripture is “incomplete”. It only says that there were so many other deeds and wonders that could be written, that to attempt to write them all down would fill up all the books of the world.
Joh_21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Does that mean that there are an infinite number of doctrines? Ridiculous!
Now to your response on Cyril:
That’s the problem. Your argument that I am “misreading” him is based on a claim against Paul, saying that the “scripture” was not enough back then because it was not complete. How do you apply that to Cyril?
If Cyril of Jerusalem teaches that nothing can be taught except it is shown out of the Holy scriptures, and that even he should not be believed, unless it is shown from the scriptures, how do you legitimately explain his meaning? You haven’t actually explained his meaning, but are hoping that we forget he said anything, and you’re even claiming him as a ‘Doctor of the church” as if that changes anything. Either he said what he said, or he didn’t. And, you’d be surprised how much is said amongst the church Fathers which your religion does not believe it. You honestly have NO clue about the teachings of the church Fathers! But I’ll help you find out, if you give me opportunity.
Put two and two together... Do some critical thinking.
You don’t know me very well, do you?
You honestly have NO clue about the teachings of the church Fathers! But I’ll help you find out, if you give me opportunity.
But as to your arguments against Paul. They are silly, since Paul and the Apostles all believed themselves to be writing scripture:
My arguments are not against St Paul... they are against your abuse of St Paul. Yes, he (and the others) knew they wrote authoritatively and that their writing were Scripture. HOWEVER (again, I repeat myself), when St Paul exhorts his readers to appeal to Scripture for the truth of what he shared, he meant the Old Testament. Yes, the Gospels were known (at least later in his ministry). Yes, there were some other letters. They were not, however, in all Churches in all places and held in the same ways. It is a logical fallacy that St Paul would tell his listeners to search his own letters for the truth of his testimony. He was sending them to see the Christ St Paul preached in the Scripture they already knew... but didn't see Christ in them until now.
So when you claim that Paul was only speaking of the Old Testament, you reveal your ignorance. Paul is speaking of the 4 Gospels, all the epistles of his fellow Apostles, and his own writings!
Let's take a logical walk here... I come to you and tell you that the answer you've been seeking your whole life is in the very same book you have been reading your whole life. For proof... do I send you to read other books that also tell you that? Do I send you to find one of my letters that will also tell you that? Rather, do I tell you to open up that book and I will show you where the answer is!? That is what St Paul is doing. Like Christ on the Road to Emmaus, he is opening their eyes to the truth of the Old Testament that is Christ.
Furthermore, the end of John does not actually claim that scripture is “incomplete”.
Good. I didn't say that either.
It only says that there were so many other deeds and wonders that could be written, that to attempt to write them all down would fill up all the books of the world.
That's a little paraphrasing by you... but I'll accept it.
Does that mean that there are an infinite number of doctrines?
Ok... that one hit me out of left field. Where did I make such a ridiculous argument? I'll save you from looking... I didn't. My argument was simply that the Bible doesn't contain everything. For example... it didn't contain the answer for the Council of Jerusalem on whether or not gentiles must be circumcised to be part of God's original covenant with Abraham in order to receive salvation through his lineage. St Peter spoke authoritatively and without the backup of Scripture because Scripture didn't have the answer... the Church did. The Church can't go against Scripture... it is the Word of God... but it must administer the Kingdom in Exile. This means it will define Doctrine where necessary. Acts 15 was a necessary moment. There have been others.
If Cyril of Jerusalem teaches that nothing can be taught except it is shown out of the Holy scriptures, and that even he should not be believed, unless it is shown from the scriptures, how do you legitimately explain his meaning?
I'll simply remind you that we do point to Scripture where we can... but you don't accept our explanation. Where we can't point directly to Scripture, we're dealing with an Acts 15 moment for the Church. To deny the Church has such authority is itself unscriptural.
You haven’t actually explained his meaning, but are hoping that we forget he said anything, and you’re even claiming him as a ‘Doctor of the church” as if that changes anything.
It means a great deal. It means that someone who has helped develop the Doctrines of the Church is being used as a sledgehammer (clumsily) against those doctrines. And yet you doggedly continue to pursue this unreasonable course that he contradicts Catholic Doctrine! You have chosen the wrong champion to use against the Church. He is one of our pillars of strength.