Yes, mountn man, do read that post again. The context is “oral tradition” versus the Word of God. The example I gave in 1 Kings is centuries before the Catholic Church was ever started. The old prophet that lied could not have been a Catholic. Oral tradition, in general, is notoriously subject to error. Whether it be Catholic, Hindu or Southern Methodist. Then multiply centuries of “tweaking” and . . . . no, we cannot give it the same gravitas as Scripture. So, no, I did not call Catholics liars. But merely disagree with their assignment of the import of tradition.
So laughable when non-Catholics try to tell Catholics what Catholic need to believe. Especially when the information isn’t accurate.
I knew what you were referencing and agree with you.
My comment was pointed at a person I feel takes offense at everything, when it's obvious what the statement is about.
You are correct, that your reference in 1 Kings happened centuries before the existence of the Catholic church. You were pointing out how somebody else lied and how IT COULD be done again.
As you mentioned in #51
In #51 you explained how you I certainly wasn't calling anyone here a liar but talking ,in general, that is why tradition does not hold the same weight as Scripture.
And yet 17 minutes later, in post #54, I was told to read #22 again. Basically, after what you just said in #51, they are still trying to claim that you accused Catholics of lying and I need to reread #22.