Bible Only is dumb

Eponymous Flower ^ | September 9, 2023 | Stop Voris

[ebb tide]

Bible Only is dumb

ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY

ONE

Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).

.

COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.

.

TWO

How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.

.

COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

.

THREE

Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.

.

Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.

Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.

COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.

.

FOUR

Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?

.

FIVE

Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.

COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

.

SIX

What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.

.

2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

.

SEVEN

Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.

.

COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.

.

EIGHT

When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.

.

COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

.

NINE

Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.

.

COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.

.

TEN

What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings.

.

COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

.

ELEVEN

Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.

If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.

.

COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.

.

TWELVE

Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.

.

COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?

.

THIRTEEN

Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A. D.? No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.

.

COMMENT: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory; but before 400 A. D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.

.

FOURTEEN

Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.

.

COMMENT: To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.

.

FIFTEEN

Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented.

.

COMMENT: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so.

.

SIXTEEN

Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the "Bible-only theory"? St. Paul seems to answer the above when he said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galations 1-8 - Protestant version ).

.

COMMENT: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least 300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700).

.

SEVENTEEN

Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the "Bible-only" theory and its personal interpretation? Just what St. Paul foretold when he said: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition). According to the World Christian Encyclopedia and other sources, there are 73 different organizations of Methodists, 55 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 17 organizations of Mennonites, 128 of Lutherans and thousands of other denominations.

.

COMMENT: The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.

.

EIGHTEEN

In Christ's system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

.

COMMENT: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of Christ's true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.

.

NINETEEN

Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.

.

2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

COMMENT: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the "Bible-only" theory be defended.

.

TWENTY

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of; God's law and God's word.

.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mal. 2-7: For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

COMMENT: Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision.

.

TWENTY-ONE

What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.

.

COMMENT: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons-but not otherwise.

.

TWENTY-TWO

Why are there so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.

.

COMMENT: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of religious faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.

.

TWENTY-THREE

Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.

.

COMMENT: Catholics love, venerate, use the Bible; but they also know that the Bible alone is not Christ's system but only a precious book, a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to "preach the Gospel to every living creature" and to keep on preaching it "to the end of time."

.

TWENTY-FOUR

Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed by John Gutenberg. It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence prevailed, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534. Of these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luther's "discovery" of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.

.

COMMENT: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.

.

TWENTY-FIVE

During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and Tyndale.

.

COMMENT: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.

.

ORIGIN OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the true Church began with Christ over 1900 years ago, not with men or women 15 to 19 centuries later. It was founded when Our Lord spoke the following and other similar words:

.

Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

COMMENT: History proves that the First Protestant Church was the Lutheran, founded in 1517 by the ex-priest Martin Luther; all other of the some 33,800 sects have been created since then.

.

AUTHORITY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.

.

Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Matt 18-17: And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-19: And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

COMMENT: The apostles repeatedly claimed this authority: Gal. 1-8; John 1-10; Acts 15, 23 and 28. Hence the laws or precepts of the true Church are founded upon the same authority as the commandments of God. For the Church of Christ has authority to act in his Name.

[Tell It Right]

(tapping my foot) I'm still waiting on you to respond to what I posted on 1st Cor 1:10-17. I've given much attention to what you posted. But you are conveniently ignoring my point that it invalidates apostolic succession, even though you're the one who highlighted v. 10.

The same for what I said about baptism being dunking in v. 16, even though you're the one who highlighted baptism in that verse.

You think you can win a debate by throwing out many arguments hoping something sticks (playing offense). I'm challenging you to show that your beliefs have mettle by defending them.

[lasereye]

the Church holds that the Bible is the source of doctrine

If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, that's incorrect. The Roman Catholic Church places itself at a level equal to scripture, and develops their own doctrines not found in scripture.

[Responsibility2nd]

Wow. Once again you are posting incorrect and false doctrine.

And all in response to myself and other Christians who have patiently tried to clearly point out the simple Gospel message to you.

But as I said upthread - do not pay attention to what any pope, priest or pastor says. Only go by the word of God. Or Christ if you will.

And by doing that you will put away the false teachings of Catholicism.

[ealgeone]

There are numerous instances of “whole households” being baptised. Those households would include infants for the simple reasons that...

Conjecture on your part.

[ealgeone]

Yet in all this, there were written accounts. We don't necessarily have to have a command saying....write the following.

We know the writers of the NT were moved by the Spirit to do so.

And there are numerous admonitions by Paul to have his letters read in the various churches.

God established the written word in the OT so the Israelis would have a record.

What Roman Catholicism cannot, or will not do, is point to a conclusive and definitive list of those oral teachings they claim the Jesus and the Apostles handed down. I mean a clear unbroken line from the end of the Apostles to now.

Rome cannot provide that because it simply does not exist.

[ealgeone]

The household would not be an atomic family of today’s but larger. It would contain children for the same reasons I’ve stated above. The fact that they are not mentioned by name and age says nothing but the fact that they were part of the household. The fact that the UK isn’t mentioned in the Bible is not relevant to the fact that exists. you says “assumptions outside the Word of God” — first, the WORD OF GOD is JESUS. Secondly, your assumption that there weren’t kids is an assumption outside the Biblical text. Nowhere does it explicitly say no kids

Again, more speculation on your part. No where does it say there were kids there. You're reading into the text what you want it to say.

[ealgeone]

SEVEN >>Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.<<

>> . COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.<<

No one is saying about having a “own copy of Scripture” but against your implication that one can “read your way to salvation”

Yet that has been an argument advanced by Roman Catholics in these forums and elsewhere. They also advance that not everyone could read.

[Elsie]

Call no man father.

[Elsie]

Seems to me you might consider verse 38 in the same chapter of John before speculating on the relative importance of James.

{speculation occurs...}

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

 

John 6:38 - Bible Gateway

 

 

O...

K...

[Elsie]

I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Humph!

I follow Moroni!!

and our Living Prophet®; of course...

[Elsie]

Actually Christ’s teachings are not all contained in the Bible - John 21:25 “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”

Do you REALLY have to try to sell the same old, truncated crap in EVERY thread???

John 20:30-31

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.

31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.

[Elsie]

At the rate the church is going they will claim the devil is really Jesus!

There's one church (and probably many of the splinter sects that came out of it) that teaches the devil is Jesus' brother.

[Elsie]

... what Christ Himself has taught Call no man father.

[Elsie]

repent, be baptised, eat of His Body and endure to the end.

Lick your fingers; Doubting Thomas. The blood is GOOD for you!!

[Elsie]

So; has the Great White Throne judgment already occurred as well?

[daniel1212]

“”No that is simply not true” wrong — ebb goes on to say that nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. which is true. You quote from the book of Revelation, not from the Gospels. Sorry, but again, you are wrong

Again, you are wrong as explained. The question was "Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so?" not simply in the gospels, and indeed the Lord did, both directly (Revelation 1:19) and as obeying His Spirit (Rm. 8:14) -to whom He provided more revelation (John 16:13, 14) for obeying Matthew 28:19, 20). .

[daniel1212]

You quote from the book of Revelation, not from the Gospels. Sorry, but again, you are wrong —> Jesus said Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and >preach> the gospel to all creation.

Again, you are wrong as explained. The question was "Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so?" not simply in the gospels, and indeed the Lord did, both directly (Revelation 1:19) and as obeying His Spirit (Rm. 8:14) to whom He provided more revelation (John 16:13, 14) for obeying Matthew 28:19, 20).

[daniel1212]

” But I was responding to this arguing against the necessity of writing as God’s chosen means of preservation, which the Lord used and opened the minds of disciples to in Lk. 24” Actually you didn’t. you went against the point raised by ebb that “ If reading the Bible were a necessary means “ You quote Luke 24 - which is about Jesus expounding the scriptures to the Apostles - i.e. explaining to them. Nothing that “reading” the scriptures was a necessary means of salvation Sorry, but you were wrong again and trying to change and interpretation of what you already interpreted is a perfect example of the indictment of personal interpretation. No one is saying about having a “own copy of Scripture” but against your implication that one can “read your way to salvation”

Do not presume to tell me what I was responding to in my intent, which here was not the absurd and false argument that "Bible only"=SS teaches that reading the Bible is a necessary means of salvation (though as said, it can be), and that since He did not say that it was, and that only "a few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings' then SS is wrong, but I was responding to the marginalization of Scripture itself, as if only a few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings' meant Scripture was not necessary in general, which my references counter.

Sorry, but you were wrong again and trying to change and interpretation of what you already interpreted is a perfect example of the indictment of personal interpretation. No one is saying about having a “own copy of Scripture” but against your implication that one can “read your way to salvation”

You were wrong again since the OP argued against reading (and hearing also applies) the Bible being "a necessary means of salvation," when indeed it can be, and John writes for that purpose, and thus you can “read your way to salvation" by believing the gospel that is written. But the manifest purpose of the OP is to argue that since the apostles taught the word of God orally, then whatever Rome says is the word of God is indeed just that, fails for while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do so either in declaring what they "infallibly" assert is the word of God."

Thus Catholicism must rely on its "premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, but which is nowhere exampled, taught or promised [in Scripture]. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power."

[daniel1212]

We have no record of them writing and it's also pretty likely that they didn't write - otherwise we would have texts handed down.

Nonsense. It is estimated that we have only a small portion of what the ancient churchmen wrote, while the whole argument that 1st century oral transmission and the absence of a complete Bible validates Catholic oral tradition is simply invalid as shown.

"classic Prot" -- what are those? Luther who believed in the True Presence in the Eucharist? Or Servetus of the Brethrens? You're just using incorrect words as the norm

You are simply using semantical protest in ignoring the point, which is against the assertion that SS means "reading is a necessary means of salvation."

The fact that Thaddeus and Bart and Thomas didn't write down texts (or they would have been handed down in the churches they founded) is a strike against your contention that one must have a written down scripture to be able to retain adherence to the core tenets of Christianity

To the contrary, rather than supporting oral teaching as the main means of reliable transmission (which, by its very nature, it is not) and which needs not to be examined as the noble Bereans exampled, the absence of Thaddeus and Bart and Thomas have no written record (but stop presuming this means they didn't write down texts) would be an argument against oral tradition, along with the variant teaching among so-called ""Church Fathers."

In reality, it is Rome which chooses which and when faithfulness is being conveyed by them (she judged them more than they judge her), consistent with her being presuming to be the only sure supreme sufficient standard.

It is sophistry to try and prove Sola scriptura by just looking at the 16th century godmen

Indeed, which is why I go to Scripture itself.

Next, you dismiss the fact that Acts 17:2 is Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees

Are you too tired to read (if so, i understand), or do you just ignore what refuted this fallacious assertion?

You have to have an alternative to SS, -- no you don't -- you have "Not SOLA" scriptura i.e. not scripture ALONE --> just like the pre-tribulation rapture or the inventios of the mormons, Sola scriptura is an invention that says "you need to have an alternative to my new invention" That is a fallacious statement

Rather, That is a fallacious statement x 2. A RC arguing against SS cannot argue a vacuum, a "no sola" as sure supreme sufficient standard, and which she indeed effectively presumes to be. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.

Thus the word of God only consists of and means what she says it does. As shown before, this premise is well exampled by the statements of no less than Cardinal Manning who asserted:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228)

"Jesus founded a Church" "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD

Again, are you too tired to read (if so, i understand), or do you just ignore what refuted this fallacious assertion? There is schorship on both sides,while the Lord Himself refers to "all the Scriptures," from a tripartite body in substantiating His mission, and reproves leadership for not knowing them, and Paul and Apollos etc. preach from them to the Jews, and who never dispute what the refers to, yet do deny that "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established" by the time of Christ. Your fingers are stiff with arthritis as you write long posts

Actually arthritis is genetic, leading to my devout RC dad retiring as a welder due to it.

that are against what Christ Himself has taught

Rather, it is that RC polemics as well as her distinctive teachings that remain to be not what Christ Himself has taught.

[Trump_Triumphant]

I know the story of Hus, and some of the hagiography surrounding it. I suppose you also know that the Hussite movement descended into a cult where freedom meant nudity all of the time, and that Hus was screwing around with women not his wife while he was preaching at Bethlehem Chapel. He considered this part of the “Freedom of the Gospel”.