That wouldn't be anything like building the whole papacy on one verse in Matthew?
Or building the whole perpetual virginity of Mary which has ZERO verses in Scripture to support it?
Or the concept of the Immaculate Conception on who knows what?
Or the ascension of Mary?
You want to start on church doctrine with weak Scriptural support? Sure, have at it.
Just be aware that for every finger you point at someone else for building doctrines on one verse of Scripture, there are more than four pointing back at the Catholic Church.
Did you read that in the clouds, or did you piece it together from what wasn't taught to you in your first communion catechism?
Therein lies the reason for the value attached to tradition as found in the Gospel of Thomas and Infancy Gospel of James and other such tripe.
That wouldn't be anything like building the whole papacy on one [VERY ARGUABLE] verse in Matthew?
Or building the whole perpetual virginity of Mary which has ZERO verses in Scripture to support it[--AND A FAIR NUMBER OF VERSES PLAINLY AGAINST IT]?
Or the concept of the Immaculate Conception on who knows what? [. . . based on the magicsterical's need, cleverness in concocting yet another entrapment and exclusivist flavored theme with which to pull more money from the sheeple.]
Or the ascension of Mary?
You want to start on church doctrine with weak Scriptural support? Sure, have at it.
[AFTER ALL, IT'S !!!!TRADITION!!!! . . . The FARCE must go on!]
QX: Ain't the !!!!TRADITIONAL!!!! Vatican DOUBLE STANDARD grand!
I read some of the finger frothers’ replies to some of your excellent posts . . . and it’s obvious . . . no matter how vainly and earnestly they try, some of them don’t begin to reach the bottom of your league.
Sometimes I wonder if they even comprehend English or logic better than a Border Collie.