Just because we reject sola scriptura (which is not, by the way, in the bible) doesn't mean we reject the bible. Not by any means.
CHRIST HIMSELF--CREATOR GOD HIMSELF
SAID
"IT IS WRITTEN"
There's CHRIST HIMSELF!
CREATOR GOD IN THE FLESH HIMSELF
making a repeated very SHARPLY INSISTENT POINT--to satan, the pharisees--to all:
The point OF AUTHORITY,
THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY
CREATOR GOD HIMSELF POINTED TO WAS:
So, y'all are BRAZENLY, BLASPHEMOUSLY, HAUGHTILY INSISTING
THAT
Creator God Himself
WAS WRONG!
It might be somewhat logical to argue that CREATOR GOD HIMSELF IN THE FLESH WAS A HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN "IT IS WRITTEN."
YET, THE RECORD indicates that CREATOR GOD HIMSELF deferred repeatedly to:
IT IS WRITTEN!
YET, the RCC INSISTS BOTH ARE WRONG.
THAT the very sort of !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!
That Creator God Himself most fiercely condemned
are more or at least equally authoritative than
the IT IS WRITTEN that CREATOR GOD DEFERRED TO AS THE HIGHER AUTHORITY.
THEN!
Y'all expect Proddys to pretend that's
No deal.
IT IS WRITTEN!
YET, the RCC INSISTS BOTH ARE WRONG.
THAT the very sort of !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!
That Creator God Himself most fiercely condemned
are more or at least equally authoritative than
the IT IS WRITTEN that CREATOR GOD DEFERRED TO AS THE HIGHER AUTHORITY.
THEN!
Y'all expect Proddys to pretend that's
No deal.
I would like a reasonable answer for WHY Catholics "reject sola scriptura". If, as claimed, the Bible is God-breathed and accepted as handed down from God himself to his people, then why reject the idea that Scripture is the authority and source of all doctrines of the Christian faith? What exactly is missing in it that other sources can be claimed as equally authoritative?