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.
So your statement is probable but not very possible
"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
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
It is sophistry to try and prove Sola scriptura by just looking at the 16th century godmen
Next, you dismiss the fact that Acts 17:2 is Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees
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
"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
The fact is that Josephus writes one point of view - whereas other Talmudic scholars differ
Your fingers are stiff with arthritis as you write long posts that are against what Christ Himself has taught
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.