If Mariology didn't come from the Scriptures or the Early Church, then how can it be viewed as truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pritchard85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pritchard85 said:
No, that’s not how it works. You give me Scripture to prove that Mary is all that your church says she is…You refute it with Scripture.
Click to expand...
Y’know, ever since you responded to me with this, it really irked me. You’re making the claim, and expect us to proof our position?

This is the same as me saying, “You are an idiot. Now prove to me that you’re intelligent,” and leaving it at that.

I shouldn’t take your response as personal, and I’m trying not to, but the way you’re debating makes me think that you didn’t do too well in Logic. 🤷
 
pritchard85 said:
No, that’s not how it works. You give me Scripture to prove that Mary is all that your church says she is. Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven body and spirit, perpetually virgin, perpetually sin free and the queen of heaven for starters. I said that those things are not supported by Scripture. You refute it with Scripture.
Click to expand...
With all due respect…if folks around here handed you any more Scripture, you’d collapse all of a heap with a herniated disk.🤷
 
Just a guess on my part, but I don’t think the OP is coming back since all of the calls for references/scripture from him. 🤷
 
We are lucky he is actually on this board in the first place, most just hang on the anti-catholic forums. Try not to gang up on him, he might feel overwhelmed and leave. We have a soul to save!
 
The Truth is the Truth, and all one has to do is put it up for what it is. Its stands on its own.

One will not understand this in a thread and must have the open mind to make the effort to take on the learning curve. I did this in ignorance of the time investment and found myself year’s later still reading History. 😃 Of course what I lived and witnessed also confirmed my better thinking.

But yes, patience is a virture. Mary date’s to before Christ OT. She participated in the Redemption. She cooperated with God out of pure Love and Devotion to God. And the Lord still sent an Angel to seek Marys assistance and Free-Will, and received Her consent and Firm commitment. From David. Isaiah, Daniel. Jeremiah OT to the Annunciation, Visitation, Presentation, Prophecy, Wedding of Cana to usher in Christs Time. to the Redemption thus Ascention, Immaculate Conception, Mary was the First Apostle and Mother of God.

One can only break of at this point. Assumption, Coronation. However Revelation must now be considered along with a host of other factor’s including 2000 years worth of scholars.

Early Church fathers left writtings from 100-AD then through the councils, countrys converted, Mexico is so profound, just study the conversion their and tell me what happened?

Through these simple lesson’s one quickly realizes’s how God must view this woman. Thats the submission She has learned and earned through God. And She asks Man for that humble submission to God, and She is their to help you find the Lord when your lost. She even seeks to save sinners. And She asks you to pray for them also for Chirst choose’s to lose not one. .

And the issue is? What? You chose not to cooperate with God?

Peace, Gary
 
Some of this may be found in Apocrypha. Are they in the “Deposit of Faith”? I would think so. The Church Fathers chose to make the New Testament rightfully centered around Jesus Christ. But if “scriptures” means ‘writings’ and "writings’ comes from Oral Tradition, I think it starts to get dicey as to how you define “scripture”. The Bible? Or in a more general way Writings that the Church has in its possession? most Apocrypha is on the web such as the “Nativity of Mary”. Nativity of Mary is the name of a number of Churches in the USA, Catholics normally accept the names of Mary’s parents as St. Anne and St. Joachim. Are they actually in the Bible? I don’t believe so but represent to an extent the extended “Holy Family”, I think early Christians looked at the “Holy Family” a bit like one of their own.
 
They most definately read the Apocrypha. Among every other writting. including to help translate the Dead Sea Scrolls.

As far as further defining Doctrine I understand the feeling yet I don’t see the wrong.

Peace
 
twopekinguys said:
Just a guess on my part, but I don’t think the OP is coming back since all of the calls for references/scripture from him. 🤷
Click to expand...
Sure I am. I just wanted to be able to view and read as many of the posts as i could. After all, this is exactly what us Protestants get accused of not doing.🙂
 
You misunderstand dogma, Pritchard. The fact that a teaching is not formally declared does not mean it was not believed or taught prior to that time. You will not find the word “Trinity” in Scripture either, but that does not mean it wasn’t believed from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Then why would something take 1900 years to be declared dogma if it always was believed by the church? It lends itself to dogma not being very imparitive.
 
pritchard85 said:
Sure I am. I just wanted to be able to view and read as many of the posts as i could. After all, this is exactly what us Protestants get accused of not doing.🙂
Click to expand...
You are overgeneralizing, Pritch. You have been accused of not reading the posts because you keep asking the same questions after they were answered to you, and refuse to engage in any meaningful dialogue about the contents of those posts. The vast majority of Protestants on this board are very careful readers and responders, quite unlike yourself.
pritchard85 said:
Then why would something take 1900 years to be declared dogma if it always was believed by the church? It lends itself to dogma not being very imparitive.
Click to expand...
How does the amount of time that has passed make an act of God less imperative?

Dogmas are implemented when heresy abouds. The Trinity was dogmatically defined because heresies were confusing the faithful.

None of the faithful were confused about the role of the Blessed Mother for almost two millennia. Those who were separated from the divine deposit of faith during the Reformation continued to drift further and further from the One Faith.
 
pritchard85 said:
Hmm. I’ve seen several quotes by many of the faithful throughout the centuries that would refute this.
Click to expand...
Great! Please post them, and we can discuss them. 👍

Unless, of course, you are not really here to discuss anything…😉
 
guanophore said:
Great! Please post them, and we can discuss them. 👍
Unless, of course, you are not really here to discuss anything…😉
Click to expand...
Tell me, why would I bother? You know they exist. You are not a stupid person. You know that the majority of your church has been questioned for centuries. Nobody needs to tell you that. I would love to discuss these things with honesty but yet you are the one that won’t. It’s just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult. Why waste my time being subjected to more?
Click to expand...
 
guanophore said:
Great! Please post them, and we can discuss them. 👍

Unless, of course, you are not really here to discuss anything…😉
Click to expand...
I have to agree.

Up to this point, the only response (if any) is that scriptures don’t say this, and don’t say that, or in this case, “I’ve seen several quotes by many of the faithful throughout the centuries that would refute this.”

Pritchard, Please provide a reference, link, quote (and who said it), anything that can be provided as a basis for what you are saying. Simply saying something isn’t right or true doesn’t really cut it.

You’ve been asked numerous times for some sort of reference, but to date, you haven’t provided anything but opinion.

In order to be taken seriously, and engage in meaningful dialog, you really do need to provide something to back up your assertions.
 
pritchard85 said:
Tell me, why would I bother? You know they exist. You are not a stupid person. You know that the majority of your church has been questioned for centuries. Nobody needs to tell you that. I would love to discuss these things with honesty but yet you are the one that won’t. It’s just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult. Why waste my time being subjected to more?
Click to expand...
COME ON MAN!

We give you the opportunity many times to prove us wrong, and here you say, “You know they exist.” Your argument would not hold up in any sort of court - heck, even the worst of the show trials within the Soviet Union were better than this!!

Also, I’m starting to think you’re not actually here to debate, but to make us get angry and call you out.

And we haven’t insulted any Protestant at all. We haven’t even insulted you. I’m just frustrated at your way of debate. We’ve given you much Scripture about what you’ve pointed out is “unbibilical” and yet you 1) refuse it read it; 2) refuse to refute it.

What makes me think that he’s simply a troll? Even the most hardcore anti-Catholic would give Scriptural references. 🤷
 
pritchard85 said:
Tell me, why would I bother? You know they exist. You are not a stupid person. You know that the majority of your church has been questioned for centuries. Nobody needs to tell you that. I would love to discuss these things with honesty but yet you are the one that won’t. It’s just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult. Why waste my time being subjected to more?
Click to expand...
Could you at least show us where there has been " * just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult"*?

I haven’t seen any, but then I haven’t read every single post on this site either.
 
The_Scott said:
COME ON MAN!

We give you the opportunity many times to prove us wrong, and here you say, “You know they exist.” Your argument would not hold up in any sort of court - heck, even the worst of the show trials within the Soviet Union were better than this!!

Also, I’m starting to think you’re not actually here to debate, but to make us get angry and call you out.

And we haven’t insulted any Protestant at all. We haven’t even insulted you. I’m just frustrated at your way of debate. We’ve given you much Scripture about what you’ve pointed out is “unbibilical” and yet you 1) refuse it read it; 2) refuse to refute it.

What makes me think that he’s simply a troll? Even the most hardcore anti-Catholic would give Scriptural references. 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s called Back door Proselytizing.

I witnessed this during my days as a member of the Assemblies of God, and Southern Baptists.

Just hammer away at the fact that someone is wrong, and they are right. Over and over and over. The hope is that sooner or later they will start to doubt themselves and believe the person (doing the hammering) is right. The most they ever have to offer is a “proof text”, and that is many times taken out of context.

I also saw this alot when I attended Baptist tent revivals in the early 70’s. Yes, they really were in tents…😃

It doesn’t work as well in this day and age, because it is much easier to research things and get answers about their own faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top