[smvoice]

I agree. Doctrine that is made on implicit meanings of Scripture is a cop out. Just say it’s not there, and you want it to be there, so you’re going to pretend it is, and be done with it.

[Jvette]

Another deflection moving the goal posts or changing the subject rather than making your case in this debate.

The actual topic at hand is can you back up your claim that the Church has ADDED to Scripture to support the doctrines which you dispute?

The logical answer in a debate would then be the naming of books that were added by the Church to support those doctrines.

I will give you another chance, but if you fail to do so again, or try to deflect, I will take that as you being unable to do so as it has not happened.

[Quix]

I agree.
Doctrine that
is made on implicit
meanings of Scripture
is
a cop out.
Just say
it’s not there,
and you want it to be there,
so you’re
going to pretend it is,
and be done with it.

AHHHHHHHH
But then,
the house of
CARDS
would
FALL!