L
lanman87
Guest
Have a great night. I have to sign off as well.
- Status
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
You too (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
L
lanman87
Guest
From this post and the one before that you posted a Non-Catholic (like me) would conclude that there is no Biblical answer to what happened to Mary and there is no Historical answer either. Therefore, the Catholic church (or people in the church) simply made up a story to fill in the blanks either by speculation or by legend. That speculation/legend caught on and eventually was made dogma.
If their was nothing new revealed after the apostles then this certainly violates that premise. If the earliest speculation is in the late 4th Century the it certainly wasn’t apostolic in origin.
L
lanman87
Guest
There is a difference between answering questions from the existing Truth and creating a new Truth.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Morning!Vonsalza:
There is a difference between answering questions from the existing Truth and creating a new Truth.
You’re right. And since the model for the Church was a continuing episcopate rather than a frozen collection of texts (which wouldn’t even be authoritatively assembled for 350 years after Jesus), it can answer emerging questions rather than try to stretch a text that didn’t exist into answering novel questions.
L
lanman87
Guest
We use concepts found in scripture or we do not attempt to engage the issue. However, most concepts of the human condition are found in scripture.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The trinity is a fine example of a core Christian doctrine not presented in scripture.theCardinalbird:
We use concepts found in scripture or we do not attempt to engage the issue. However, most concepts of the human condition are found in scripture.
The problem with using the bible as a catechism, at the core, is that the authors didn’t write it as a catechism.
L
lanman87
Guest
Athanasius did a pretty good job of showing the Trinity in Scripture.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
This is the critical point.
L
lanman87
Guest
My contention (and that of many people way smarter and more educated than me) is that, in some cases, the Catholic church created “truth” instead of explaining a position from the Gospel message that was handed down from Christ to the Apostles.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Two points;Vonsalza:
Athanasius did a pretty good job of showing the Trinity in Scripture.
- By your own standard, was Athanasius an apostle? Why does a 4th century catholic bishop get some special air with you that others do not? Just because you happen to agree with him?
- If the Trinity is clearly identified in scripture, could you please cite the verse? From my time hanging around bible college in my youth to the decades I’ve spent in scripture since, I’ve never ever seen a verse identifying the doctrine. If you can finally cite me one, that’d be great.
And we can argue these points because scripture, on its own, doesn’t clearly contradict them. Which is exactly why these heresies became so popular.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes! They were those who, realizing the error of their ways, turned away from their personal opinions which were in conflict with the teachings of the Church, and accepted Church teaching as authoritative. You know… just like St Jerome did, vis-a-vis the Deuterocanon.
You misunderstand what the Church means by ‘tradition’ in this context, then.
When the Church talks about ‘tradition’, it means ‘Sacred Tradition’. In other words, the teaching of Christ’s Gospel by the Apostles (who, incidentally, literally heard the ‘God-breathed’ teachings of the Incarnate Son of God!) and the teachings in continuity of that Gospel by the successors of the Apostles.
Umm… you realize that the Magisterium defined the canon of Scripture, so… they really did tell you what is in the Gospel, right?
In the sense that the magisterium doesn’t create new doctrine (but rather, merely clarifies and explains), and in that sense, they only teach from what the Apostles taught… and the Apostles only taught what Jesus taught, so… yeah, kinda: the magisterium teaches what Jesus breathed.
Pope Francis is held in high esteem by the Catholic Church. Pope Francis thinks that Argentina has the best soccer teams in the world. Doesn’t matter who else holds that same opinion; the fact that they share that opinion doesn’t mean it’s the teaching of the Church.
Did Paul teach that one might teach the gospel according to his own mind, in conflict with the Church? Or did he teach that this was sinful?
Now you’re just getting silly. Are you really asserting that he should have said “traditions taught by us… or, in the future, by those who succeed us… or even those who break from the Church and teach the gospel according to their own private interpretation”…? C’mon…
They generally predeceased her, so…
Oh! So, this isn’t really about the truth or about your faith in Christ’s Church – it’s about your skepticism? Got it.
L
lanman87
Guest
So if they only teach what the apostles taught then how do you explain the things like the Assumption and Papal Infallibility that were obviously not taught by the apostles. Those things either have to have been taught by the apostles or they would have to be a new revelation to the successors of the apostles. However, the church teaches that all new revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle. But History shows that those teachings started showing up at a later date. And in the case of Papal Infallibility, we can actually show the where and why that doctrine came into being.They generally predeceased her, so…
It is one thing to explain what was taught by the Apostles, it is another to create a new teaching that was never taught by the Apostles. I believe history shows several instances of the church creating a new doctrine (even though it claims it hasn’t) instead of explaining the doctrines/teachings that were handed down by the apostles.
L
lanman87
Guest
It is about how to determine the truth.Oh! So, this isn’t really about the truth or about your faith in Christ’s Church – it’s about your skepticism? Got it.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Hmmm… it makes one wonder why they bothered having the first 7 Ecumenical Councils where things like the Trinity and the Godhood/Personhood of Jesus was defined…
L
lanman87
Guest
Yes, but 95% of all people who call themselves Christians believe that there is one God who exist in three persons and they believe that is what the Bible teaches. Consider this response from a Evangelical American on the question of the Trinity. It is one of a dozen I could find. Notice, she doesn’t defend the trinity because it was taught in Church Councils. She defends it because it is taught in the Bible. The councils just confirmed true Biblical teaching.
You didn’t answer this question. Can you show Papal Infallibility and the Assumption in the Bible like the lady in the link I posted showed the Trinity in the Bible?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I know. There’s a reason for that.Vonsalza:
Yes, but 95% of all people who call themselves Christians believe that there is one God who exist in three persons and they believe that is what the Bible teaches.
The ecumenical councils were held back when the only Christian Church that existed was one with hierarchical authority. When they made a determination, it was binding and all who disagreed were heretics. The heretics eventually fell into obscurity.
Heresy disappears after the Church authoritatively speaks on it. For example, once-upon-a-time, maybe a third of Christians were Arians. No longer.
Again, the Trinity is not explicitly taught in scripture.
If my claim above is full of hot air and bombast, you can kill it and embarrass me in front of everyone by showing where it’s taught.
I’m not Catholic, so I’ll make no attempt to defend papal infallibility (I will, however, defend papal primacy until I’m blue in the face). But asking for the Assumption to be in scripture doesn’t make sense. It happened when virtually all of the apostolic writers were already dead.
What’s reasonably clear on the subject was that it enjoyed wide acceptance from the time it happened until the advent of Evangelicalism in the US. Martin Luther even had some difficulty shedding himself of his Marian beliefs.
The declaration of the Assumption was simply the canonization of something that Orthodox Christian thinkers already knew - just as they did with the Trinity.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I believe the scripture identifies Christ as God, the Father as God and the Holy Spirit as God. And also says there is only one God, Does it not?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Again, you’re standing on the shoulders of centuries of work by the visible, hierarchical and authoritative Church. They did the heavy lifting of clearing out most heresy over the centuries. Especially on the issue of declaring that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead.Vonsalza:
I believe the scripture identifies Christ as God, the Father as God and the Holy Spirit as God. And also says there is only one God, Does it not?
Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity at the present because of its lack of definition (concerning the Holy Spirit) in scripture. They’re not alone.
A textual approach to Christianity doesn’t make sense. It wasn’t like that from the start and that didn’t arise until widespread literacy made it possible - almost within living memory.
And a self-interpretive approach doesn’t make sense. It results in what you see in modern protestantism - so many denominations that in obvious subconscious self-critique they’ve had to move away from denominationalism (and thus doctrine) in the name of superficial unity. You get sermon after sermon about how God is Love and Wants the Best For You and not a whole lot else.
E
Elf01
Guest
I’ll accept Christ and the Father as being identified as God in scripture, but I don’t recall any explicit reference to the Holy Spirit being God.
- Status