I maintain that unless one can cite the OT prophecy that tells Simeon he would not see death before seeing the Messiah, it must be conceded that by the narrative comments therein, and Simeon's own words as "the Holy Ghost was upon him," the Bible is not the entirety of God's word.
“it must be conceded that by the narrative comments therein, and Simeon’s own words as “the Holy Ghost was upon him,” the Bible is not the entirety of God’s word.”
I recalled you made this argument before, however, as then, holding to Scripture as the supreme and sufficient authority does not require that all that can be known is in Scripture, which itself confirms there is more, (Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4; 2Cor. 12:4) but that it is the assured established Word of God and supreme authority, and that what is necessary for salvation and growth is formally (very limited) or materially contained therein. And which provided for additional writings being added, as what “the Word of the Lord/God” revealed was normally written down, as a study of the phrase reveals. And thus we know what was revealed to Simeon, versus eons-old textually unverifiable nebulous traditions.
And while Scripture also provides for illumination and communication from God (esp. during the offering:), all such are subject to the Scriptures, as being the established assured word of God and supreme authority.
In contrast is a group of men asserting that whatever they and their successors will ever speak universally on faith and morals will be as sure and faultless as if it came from the lips of the Lord Jesus, and or require the same full assent of faith. This was not necessary for Truth to be provided and preserved as seen by Scripture, nor was that promised, despite attempts to extrapolate this based upon promises of guidance, etc., and which even writers of Holy Writ did not claim, as i previously (654) posted on.