Enough, lets get things straight!

[reggieM]

But once again…your counterpoint is based upon several presuppositions.

1. I do not agree with it but I never said it was heretical. In fact, I would be surprised if hardly anyone would view it as such.

If’ it’s not heretical, then it is orthodox teaching.

1. It is non-scriptural. It, however, might not be anti-scriptural. In other words, it does not directly say nor do I think it infers it. I believe even those who support it would take it to the level of inference only.

As often mentioned, the word “Trinity” is not used in the Bible. But through the Councils of the Church we know it is an orthodox theological formulation - based on Scripture and the teaching of Christ as given to the apostles.

1. I do not believe that all new teachings were condemned by the Catholic Church. That seems to be the presupposition you are operating under.

When we say “new teachings” this can mean several things. As above, with definitions on the Trinity. They were “new” because they hadn’t been defined that way before. But they were not “new” in the sense that someone made them up outside of the apostolic tradition. Of course, new theological terminology has entered into the life of the Church over the centuries. This has helped to explain doctrine to new generations in new social and cultural climates.
But these new expressions have to be evaluated against the Scripture and tradition. If they’re consistent and true expressions - then they’re approved. If not, then they are condemned. That’s how the Councils have always worked – from the first Council of Jerusalem presided over by the apostles themselves. They had to determine “new” teachings, which were applications of what they learned directly from Jesus.

1. Nothing in your statement still deals with the fact that you cannot prove that something existed earlier without some form of evidence it did. How people react to something after it appears does not prove or disprove when it started. That position is untenable.

If your point is that we don’t have absolute proof, then that is correct. But it’s not correct to say that we don’t have any evidence. Again, especially during the 4th century, doctrines were analyzed and debated carefully. A prominent voice like the Bishop of Hippo would receive a lot of attention. Other Church leaders were excommunicated for the slightest violation of orthodox teaching at the time.
So, that is evidence that makes the claim plausible.
Additionally, there may be other references to this terminology but I haven’t researched it carefully enough to know.

 

[Nicea325]

Tantum ergo;6802580:

Good find. Thanks. You google better than I.
Um…I do want to say one thing and you do not have to respond. The underlined part is often asserted by Catholic apologists but really…how could anyone every know this?
Do you see what I mean?
Its impossible, literally, to substantiate this. How can you know something was taught earlier if you have no record of it? Its really just an assertion based upon a hypothesis.
Oh but I like it…see, no one disputed Sola Scriptura until the 16th century. It was not neccessary to write it down because it had been orally taught for so long…
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

So are you making the claim Sola Scriptura was taught and considered ‘the’ mother of all doctrines? I am still waiting for one believer of Sola Scriptura to show me one early church father who wrote extensively on Sola Scriptura? Second, if Sola Scriptura was taught from the get-go,I am curious to know why it was never once even discussed extensively at the first four ecumenical councils?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;6802600:

So are you making the claim Sola Scriptura was taught and considered ‘the’ mother of all doctrines? I am still waiting for one believer of Sola Scriptura to show me one early church father who wrote extensively on Sola Scriptura? Second, if Sola Scriptura was taught from the get-go,I am curious to know why it was never once even discussed extensively at the first four ecumenical councils?

No, of course not…

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6803980:

No, of course not…

Okay, my apologies.

 

[jmcrae]

Good find. Thanks. You google better than I.
Um…I do want to say one thing and you do not have to respond. The underlined part is often asserted by Catholic apologists but really…how could anyone every know this?

The content of the writing itself often gives us a clue. For example, if I am writing to you something with language that I think is unfamiliar to you, I will include definitions of my terms. (This is what we see with the earliest writings on Sola Scriptura, for example. The Reformers wrote long paragraphs explaining what they meant by that phrase.) However, if I’m writing to you about things we’ve discussed previously in person, or things that both of us have known all our lives, then I use the terms without providing any definitions for them.

Secondly, although we don’t have previous written content about the subject at hand, we do have written records and archaeological evidence that give us an idea of what was going on in the Church beforehand, and what sorts of things they were concerned about.

Oh but I like it…see, no one disputed Sola Scriptura until the 16th century.

True, they didn’t. So, let’s look at our criteria:

1. The tone and content of the writing itself: We see that when the Reformers were writing about Sola Scriptura, they went to great lengths to explain what it is. Therefore, we know that the concept was unfamiliar to their audience - the Queen of England, the Pope, various Bishops - all of these were unaware of the concept of Sola Scriptura, and needed to have it explained to them.
2. What was going on in the Church previously: When we look at the practices of the Church, we also see that no one was employing Sola Scriptura. Instead, we see St. Francis and his followers putting on pageants and singing in the streets, and we see great Cathedrals being constructed, and people making statues of the Saints and angels, and people constructing rosaries, and publishing prayer books alongside of Bibles, and just about anything but Sola Scriptura.

And then, of course 3 - the reaction of the Church to the new information. Are the scholars of the Church saying, “OH, so that’s what that means!” Or are they saying, “Wait a second - that’s contrary to the Gospel that we have been given - it’s heretical!”

 

[Joshua27]

Actually, someone who I have much respect for caught it and I admitted it was not the best of words,although some say it was okay. Nonetheless, I wrote it and apologized and owe the thanks to someone…

I hope he does.

Thanks, I do. [sorry in return…]

 

[JonNC]

1. What was going on in the Church previously: When we look at the practices of the Church, we also see that no one was employing Sola Scriptura. Instead, we see St. Francis and his followers putting on pageants and singing in the streets, and we see great Cathedrals being constructed, and people making statues of the Saints and angels, and people constructing rosaries, and publishing prayer books alongside of Bibles, and just about anything but Sola Scriptura.

Are you saying that these contradict sola scriptura? If so, how so?

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

Exactly!!!

 

[ufamtobie]

Mary’s spouse was Joseph. The Bible says so. She was no one else’s “true spouse”

Rightlydivide, Yes, Mary’s spouse was Joseph, however, Joseph was only a “stand in” for the Holy Spirit, so that the community of that era won’t stone her to death as it was written in their law to do to such a sin having a baby without a husband.

Joseph was given the Grace to understand his role in the life of Jesus and Mary. Pray to God that you to will receive this Grace to understand.

Ufamtobie

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide, Yes, Mary’s spouse was Joseph, however, Joseph was only a “stand in” for the Holy Spirit, so that the community of that era won’t stone her to death as it was written in their law to do to such a sin having a baby without a husband.

Joseph was given the Grace to understand his role in the life of Jesus and Mary. Pray to God that you to will receive this Grace to understand.

Ufamtobie

No of course not. God would not have allowed her to be stoned, he drowned tens of thousands of people to save the Israelites, He can handle a few stones. The Holy Spirit did not marry anyone. Joseph married Mary and the Bible does not say anything about a stand in.

 

[ufamtobie]

No of course not. God would not have allowed her to be stoned, he drowned tens of thousands of people to save the Israelites, He can handle a few stones. The Holy Spirit did not marry anyone. Joseph married Mary and the Bible does not say anything about a stand in.

Yes true God would not allow Virgin Mary to be stoned that’s why the need of St. Joseph to step in as a step father/stand in get the picture.

Yes, Joseph married Virgin Mary true i don’t argue that for scripture state it. But She conceived of the Holy Spirit before being married to Joseph. Joseph new his Role, so Mary’s true spouse is the Holy Spirit! Amen

Ufamtobie

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes true God would not allow Virgin Mary to be stoned that’s why the need of St. Joseph to step in as a step father/stand in get the picture.

Yes, Joseph married Virgin Mary true i don’t argue that for scripture state it. But She conceived of the Holy Spirit before being married to Joseph. Joseph new his Role, so Mary’s true spouse is the Holy Spirit! Amen

Ufamtobie

But there was not spousal about it. The term overshadow appears in all sorts of contexts in the Bible and never as anything to do with being a spouse.

 

[ufamtobie]

But there was not spousal about it. The term overshadow appears in all sorts of contexts in the Bible and never as anything to do with being a spouse.

Rightlydivide, Please there was a baby being born here and that baby is Jesus Christ, who is God the Son. Therefore Mary is the True spouse of the Holy Spirit!

The term over shadowing appears, ok was there a baby being born there to as well in these other over shadowings?

Ufamtobie

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide, Please there was a baby being born here and that baby is Jesus Christ, who is God the Son. Therefore Mary is the True spouse of the Holy Spirit!

The term over shadowing appears, ok was there a baby being born there to as well in these other over shadowings?

Ufamtobie

But there was no sex or anything like that. If there was anything remotely like sex, you might have a point. But we know that is not the case. The fact that a baby came into existence with this overshadowing does not make it spousal. That insinuates something that did not occur.

 

[ufamtobie]

But there was no sex or anything like that. If there was anything remotely like sex, you might have a point. But we know that is not the case. The fact that a baby came into existence with this overshadowing does not make it spousal. That insinuates something that did not occur.

BILL, Rightlydived,

Truly u don’t know the Power of God, God, can do all things and nothing is impossible to Him, Mary concieved of the Holy Spirit it says so in the bible. Therefore she is the True Spouse of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph.

And you did not answer my question : in these other over shadowing was there a baby born do to it?

Ufamtobie

 

[Rightlydivide]

BILL, Rightlydived,

Truly u don’t know the Power of God, God, can do all things and nothing is impossible to Him, Mary concieved of the Holy Spirit it says so in the bible. Therefore she is the True Spouse of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph.

And you did not answer my question : in these other over shadowing was there a baby born do to it?

Ufamtobie

Of course all things are possible. Mary did conceive but there was nothing spousal about it. In what way could it be called a spouse? There was absolutely no sex or anything like that, we agree on that, right?

 

[ufamtobie]

Of course all things are possible. Mary did conceive but there was nothing spousal about it. In what way could it be called a spouse? There was absolutely no sex or anything like that, we agree on that, right?

]

Apparently you do not believe that God can do all things, you believe only what you think God can do, and that is wrong, you are limiting God to your standard and that’s very low.

Sex, sex is always on your mind here… Remember God can do all things! The Bible states that Virgin Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit and that should be enough for you to believe.

What man out there unless he was a devil would want to touch a Pure Holy Creature of God Virgin Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ the Son of God. Tell me would you?

Let’s say you were Joseph and you found out that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit? Virgin Mary was the Living Arc who literally carried the Son of God in Her Most Holy womb would you dare touch such a being. If you say yes, then you are a sheep in wolves clothing and that is why Jesus did not choose you to be Joseph. Amen

You will know this truth wether it be in this life time or in the next that Virgin Mary is the True Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

I count my blessings and Graces every day that I was born into the Catholic Faith because if I was not, then perhaps I would be like you, fighting against the True Church and resulting in nothing but my own down fall and utter shame.

By the way do you call Virgin Mary Blessed?

Still you have not answered me did the other over shadowing that you spoke about that happened in the bible did it conceived a Baby? Answer me.

One more thing did Jesus Come in the Flesh or in Spirit?

Ufamtobie

 

[Rightlydivide]

I just told you I believe that God can do all things. Yes, Mary conceived a baby when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Now tell me how this has anything to do with being a spouse…How was the Holy Spirit a spouse? In what way…yeah yeah, you are Catholic. Thats just great. Now answer.

 

[ufamtobie]

Of course all things are possible. Mary did conceive but there was nothing spousal about it. In what way could it be called a spouse? There was absolutely no sex or anything like that, we agree on that, right?

Rightlydivide,

I have read your profile, your religion is: Small church that follows the Bible.

did Jesus Christ ever say to His Apostles You are peter the rock on which I build my bible and the gates of hell will not prevail over it? No!

Following the Bible is good, but Jesus Christ did not leave the Bible for us to adhere to but the CHURCH and it is only through the Church who translates to us the truth regarding the bible.

Matt 16: 18 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

The Bible don’t even have the keys to the kingdom of Heaven the CHURCH DOES

When u say u belong to a church that follows the bible you are going about it in the wrong way. It is the Church you should follow and should adhere to it, for it has the keys to your salvation, again, the Bible is the WORD OF GOD and what better place to learn of the WORD of GOD than the One and Only Church founded on ROCK that holds the keys to bind or loose what ever!

The Catholic Church is that Church and it is a big Church and you will never be able to defeat it, though the devil try’s and you try, and both will never defeat it.
Ufamtobie

 

[ufamtobie]

I just told you I believe that God can do all things. Yes, Mary conceived a baby when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Now tell me how this has anything to do with being a spouse…How was the Holy Spirit a spouse? In what way…yeah yeah, you are Catholic. Thats just great. Now answer.

You have not answered me. did Jesus COME IN THE FLESH OR IN SPIRIT?

Thank you, it is great being a Catholic, will you also join the Church?

Ufamtobie