W
whatistruth
Guest
You are still not getting it. Not everything Jesus said and did is in the Scriptures. We must rely on an authoritative Church to define these doctrines.
Shalome
- Status
Shalome
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
There is nothing I have posted that allows you to come to that conclusion.
Regardless, did the apostles teach any of the aforementoned doctrines?
P
peary
Guest
W
whatistruth
Guest
I promise I never meant anything harmful in my words. I will end with this remark; "The Word of God can not be resticted to a book. He is a person and not a thing both fully divine and fully human. If we restrict Jesus to only what is written in the scriptures then the scriptures is what we worship. We (The Church) elect to worship Jesus as the divine being of all that is written and unwritten about him. All that is invisible and visible about him. He left us his Church, an Apostolic Church and not one that was developed by any man i.e., Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, and so on. This authoritative Church gave us the scriptures along with the oral Teachings of Jesus Christ,Sacred Traditions and a teaching office, the apostles and their successors. She will reign forever and the gates of hell will not prevail against her. Amen!
Shalome
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Thanks for your post.
W
whatistruth
Guest
You and all are more than welcome. I am thankful I can end my post with warmth and the love of the Holy Trinity.
Shalome
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Catholics are required to know exactly none of the scriptures. That would not be the best of tactics to be a good Catholic, but the importance of scripture is as “back-up” (rationalization) for doing as God says we must do to choose Him at our end.
We can get that information (how to act) from the Church, which IS where we all get it anyway, in fact.
Not availing ourselves of the resources of the Church doesn’t help us, but at least if non-Catholics use the Church’s resource they know as “the bible” they are better off than using none of the Church’s resources!
The bible is a subset of the resources of the Church, and he who uses it is in some small way, at least, a “member” of the Body of Christ better known (or should be better known) as “The Church (Cathlic)”.
That is why non-Catholics are not “automatically excluded” from heaven, anymore than anyone else with a conscience (The Church’s gift of the ability to judge via [hopefully well formed] conscience).
(( Even “conscience” is a gift of the Church, because “THE CHURCH” is God plus His “assistance” for us. The Church has never NOT existed, as wherever there was God in relation to humanity there was the Church. ))
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The other poster is correct. It is a false premise to insist that these must be explicit in Scripture in order to be part of Divine Revelation. God never said He would limit Himself to the written word only, so why should we?
At any rate, allusions are available. For instance the Immaculate Conception is in Luke 1:28. The Assumption follows from this through Tradition and reinforced in Rev 11:19-12:5. I find it a little suspicious that you want something besides Matthew Scripture regarding the papacy, but even so, consider Luke 22:31–32 and the Greek in there.
At any rate, you will be better served to understand all this by getting beyond “Revelation is in Scripture alone.”
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Here’s the rub on this: We are to follow Christ and this includes believing in what He reveals to us because in doing so, we accept all of Christ, not part. We are to accept every word and even Scripture itself is quite clear that God is capable of Revelation by means other than writing.
So while a person may go to heaven never believing in, say, the Assumption of Mary (let’s assume it is not in Scripture at all for the sake of argument
), if that person realizes the Assumption is a doctrine of Christ’s faith, then to reject it is to compromise giving oneself to Christ completely. If one is going to openly deny the Assumption is part of Divine Revelation, that could pose a problem, and any person is obligated to speak the truth.If a person denies that the Assumption is part of Revelation due to a bad faith investigation, it could jeopardize that person’s salvation since acting in bad faith is a form of lying. And such a denial is also in a sense denying God’s word.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
My point was that there are many doctrines that your church clings to that can’t be traced to either the apostles or scripture.
To get that Mary was sinless from Luke 1:28 it seems to me that one has to start with the idea and read it back into scripture.
As to the assumption, there is no evidence of this tradtion until centuries after the apostles and no, Revelations does not teach that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven.
It shouldn’t be suspicious at all.
To go from Matthew 16 to the modern day papacy takes tremendous leaps in logic that just aren’t supported by either the scriptures or traditon as the modern concept of the papacy has no foundation in tradition until many centuries after the apostles.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I am an Ahmadi a peaceful Muslim. For one, excuse me, I don’t believe that only Bible is sufficient for salvation of a people. It is true that all Revealed Religions were true in their origins and also their ProphetsMessengers were also truthful but due to the time factor their true teachings got obscured under the debris of time , in my opinion.
With the coming of Quran whrerein all truthful teachings of all the principled true revelations have been protected and secured, it is absolutely essential and conveniet for everybody to believe in Quran , of course with true enquiry and out of free will without any compulsion.
This is what I understand.
Quran
[5:48] And let the people of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein, and whoso judges not by what Allah has revealed, these it is who are the transgressors.
[5:49] And We have revealed unto thee the Book comprising the truth and fulfilling that which was revealed before it in the Book, and as a guardian over it. Judge, therefore, between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their evil desires, turning away from the truth which has come to thee. For each of you We prescribed a clear spiritual Law and a manifest way in secular matters. And if Allah had enforced His will, He would have made you all one people, but He wishes to try you by that which He has given you. Vie then with one another in doing good works. To Allah shall you all return; then He will inform you of that wherein you differed;
Unquote
Thanks
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Please give pause for one second, that if Tradition is a true form of Divine Revelation (Paul thinks so), your logic above will forever forbid you to see it. In a sense, it binds God to man-made parameters.
That’s why I said there were allusions to Scripture. And I gave you Scriptural “evidence”…that’s why I even made sure to include Revelation 11:19 that mentioned Mary as seen as the Ark of the Covenant. (see the chart on this page for more Scripture fun on this). We all know the perfect details by which the first Ark was designed. And we know the NT types of the OT types are more even more perfect. Fortunately, we have an authority passed on through the apostles, laying on of hands, Holy Spirit’s teaching authority passed on, etc…you know the drill, even if you deny that.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Someone asked about the Assumption. If my memory serves, pious tradition states that she was assumed into heaven in the presence of the Apostles. They all knew it. That leads me to believe that it was not so much a teachign as a statement of fact. Remember how we Catholics are about relics? Where are the relics from Mary? Trust me, if they were still on earth, you would know it. Both the Eastern and Western Church celebrate it, so if it was “man made” it must pre-date the Schism, not the date of the Pope’s pronouncement of it a Dogma. I know this does not help and it may hijack the thread ( I hope not), but it is the story.
A
AllSaints1631
Guest
Protestants DID discard what was not necessary and also not really Scripture, that which being the apocrypha.
M
Metaron
Guest
Whatever, Allsaints1631. Come back and tell me when you find Absolute Truth in Protestantism and unanimous agreement, ok? I don’t think it will be any time soon.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
There are no relics of Mary, in my opinion, with the Catholics, as Mary migrated to far off lands from Galilee with her son Jesus after the event of crucifixion in which he survived cursed death on Cross with the grace of GodAllahYHWH.
Anybody interested in her relics should search in those lands.
Thanks
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
The point I was attempting to make is there are many dogmas your church claims are apostolic that aren’t able to be traced back to the apostles. You are stuck w/ your church’s word for it.
Revelations offers no proof for the assumption as there are other “characters” in the the book that are depicted as being in heaven but yet no one believes these people were assumed. The problem w/ typology in regards to the ark and the assumption is that there are no limits to such comparison. One can pick and choose what they want to in order to make the scriptures fit their theology.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I’m struggling to communicate with you Pwrlftr so this will be my last post on the subject. First of all, the conclusion that Mary was assumed does not rest only in Revelation. If it did, it would be silly as you say, because others are mentioned in Revelation about whom we do not teach were assumed. If you are able to take whole the deposit of faith which included the Ark, Mary full of grace, original sin, Genesis 3:15, Rev 11-12, etc…ad nauseum…the faith is understood through the Church from that deposit of faith. It is a non-sequitur to say this stuff does not go back to the apostles just because they did not say “Mary was assumed” because the Spirit has revealed through the Church the deeper meaning of those and other Scriptures and Traditions.
If you are familiar with the Old and New Testaments, you understand how God revealed truths to His people in stages. Always. From Noah to Abraham to Moses to Jeremiah to Isaiah. He built upon what was previously taught. Even the New Testament itself succeeds what was previously understood in the Old. A microcosm of all this can be seen in Mark 8:22-26 when Jesus takes two attempts to heal a blind man. First He let the man see basic shapes. And later He let the man see the shapes more clearly and make sense of them.
In understanding Christ, He told us that the Holy Spirit in the future would reveal the whole truth (Jn 16:13). To limit the scope of the Spirit only to the New Testament epistles is a man-made idea.
I don’t rely on the word of “my church” as you cynically put it. I rely on Christ Who cannot be separated from His Church. And as an aside, you rely on “my church” too when you accept the 27 books of the New Testament.
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you happen to know the earliest copy of the Septuagint? The last i looked it was only to the 4th century.
J
justasking4
Guest
i have looked at it and it doesn’t really tell me what passages and verses mean in context.
- Status