"It's not biblical"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Newbie2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re absolutely right … God can do anything He so chooses. Question: if Elijah and Enoch were taken up to heaven by God, and it is recorded in scripture, why do you think that Mary’s “assumption” was left out … I mean, after all, would the Holy Spirit really omit this in light of the fact that Mary’s believed to be the mother of God?

The following was the original statement …

"If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed "biblical".

So far no one has stepped up to the plate with biblical substantiation … pitiful.
Right after you provide the biblical authorization for sola scriptura. The Catholic Church has nothing to justify. All others do, for they have departed from the fulness of truth. I will pray that the Holy Spirit illumines your heart. Amen.
 
You’re absolutely right … God can do anything He so chooses. Question: if Elijah and Enoch were taken up to heaven by God, and it is recorded in scripture, why do you think that Mary’s “assumption” was left out … I mean, after all, would the Holy Spirit really omit this in light of the fact that Mary’s believed to be the mother of God?

The following was the original statement …

"If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed "biblical".

So far no one has stepped up to the plate with biblical substantiation … pitiful.
It seems that, in your mind, this is something that God should have told us via an inspired writing. What makes you the authority on what God should and shouldn’t have said? Is that authority of yours specifically called out and given in scripture?

Talk about pitiful!
 
“Scripture … is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

Where does scripture say that it is the sole source to be used to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice?

I suggest you look up the Strong’s definition for the Greek word translated as profitable.

Until you can answer my question there can be no answer to yours.
I suggest that you refer to the original OP. All I did was ask where in scripture do you find evidence of the assumption of Mary? Not one scripture has been quoted … just a bunch of empty words.

Why not just admit that Mary’s assumption is based solely in your “sacred tradition” … which I might point out, is NOT the infallible word of God!
 
You’re absolutely right … God can do anything He so chooses. Question: if Elijah and Enoch were taken up to heaven by God, and it is recorded in scripture, why do you think that Mary’s “assumption” was left out … I mean, after all, would the Holy Spirit really omit this in light of the fact that Mary’s believed to be the mother of God?

The following was the original statement …

"If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed "biblical".

So far no one has stepped up to the plate with biblical substantiation … pitiful.
As soon as you show me where in the Bible everything HAS to be written down in the Bible. If you can show me that, I’ll convert to your church right now.

Your thinking that everything has to be written down is actually ANTI-Biblical. Check the last verse of John. If everything Jesus did and said wasn’t even written down, what makes you think everything that God the Father or the Holy Spirit’s detailed chronicles and actions would be any more complete? Who are you to tell the Holy Spirit what He wants to write down and what He doesn’t?
 
I suggest that you refer to the original OP. All I did was ask where in scripture do you find evidence of the assumption of Mary? Not one scripture has been quoted … just a bunch of empty words.

Why not just admit that Mary’s assumption is based solely in your “sacred tradition” … which I might point out, is NOT the infallible word of God!
I was responding to your comment. The reasons for believing in the Assumption have been plainly stated.

Now you must tell me why it has to be explicitly stated in Scripture and answer my question as to where Scripture says that it is the sole source for teaching.
 
What makes you the authority on what God should and shouldn’t have said? Is that authority of yours specifically called out and given in scripture?

Talk about pitiful!
Now that’s really funny … since the RCC is the self-imposed “authority” on what God would and wouldn’t have done or said!

All that we know of God is spelled out in scripture and all that God wants us to know as pertains to our salvation is contained within the pages of scripture. Mary’s assumption and her immaculate conception is not God’s inspired word and only serves to place Mary on level she neither deserves nor wants.
 
I was responding to your comment. The reasons for believing in the Assumption have been plainly stated.

Now you must tell me why it has to be explicitly stated in Scripture and answer my question as to where Scripture says that it is the sole source for teaching.
I have to leave for an appointment but will be back sometime this afternoon … at which time I would love to continue our discussion. 🙂
 
You’re absolutely right … God can do anything He so chooses. Question: if Elijah and Enoch were taken up to heaven by God, and it is recorded in scripture, why do you think that Mary’s “assumption” was left out … I mean, after all, would the Holy Spirit really omit this in light of the fact that Mary’s believed to be the mother of God?
Mary is the Mother of God. This can definitely be seen from scripture:

Luke 1:43
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
The following was the original statement …

"If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed "biblical".

So far no one has stepped up to the plate with biblical substantiation … pitiful.
Maybe biblical wasn’t the best word to use since you seem to have a different definition of “biblical” from the OP. I think what the original claim meant was that it is not “anti-biblical” in the same way the Trinity is not anti-biblical. By your definition of biblical, it would also be hard to consider the Trinity a biblical teaching.

Sure there are verses that support the idea of a Trinity in the Bible(John 1, Matt 28:19) just as their are things that support the assumption of Mary in the Bible (Rev 12:1-5). However, you could also argue by using Scripture alone that there are things that do not support the Trinity (Mark 13:32, Acts 2:24,36) and that do not suppor the assumption (John 6:40).

Obviously, in each case here one side is “ignorantly twisting the Scripture” as Peter warns us in 2 Peter 3:15,16
15.Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16.He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Now, by your definition both of these would be “biblical” since there seems to be biblical support for them. However, we both know that they both can’t be right, which also means they both can’t be biblical.

The only way to sort this out is the “biblical” Catholic view which tells us to hold on to the Traditions that were passed to us by the Apostles.

2 Thess 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings(traditions) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
So in this view, the Assumption of Mary and the Trinity would be “biblical” since they hold on to the Sacred Tradition just as the Bible asks us to.

Hope this helps,

God Bless!
 
Now that’s really funny … since the RCC is the self-imposed “authority” on what God would and wouldn’t have done or said!

All that we know of God is spelled out in scripture and all that God wants us to know as pertains to our salvation is contained within the pages of scripture. Mary’s assumption and her immaculate conception is not God’s inspired word and only serves to place Mary on level she neither deserves nor wants.
Now you are trying to tell me what Mary deserves and wants! What gall!

By the way, you are the one who brought up Mary, not the OP. You are the one who has to answer my question.

Also on the self imposed issue;
Mat 16:18 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.
Mat 16:19 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 on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
My Church can show unbroken descent from the Disciples. We can show a continual teaching of truth for 2000 years. I really think that we have more right to claim “authority” than you.
 
No real point here except that the oft-used arguement against Catholic teaching, “It’s not biblical” seem ever so to be a sham argument. This isn’t a new revelation to me, but perhaps I’m just tired and ornery this AM.

If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed “biblical”.
Here in lies the problem. I believe that the OP inadvertently introduced an error into the premise. Catholics do not now, and have never claimed the bible as the sole rule of faith. Unfortunately, a direct scriptural connection is implied in the above. As has been stated ad-nauseum, RC’s hold to Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Majesterium.

While I do not agree with charlye’s position, I can understand why he is responding using the assumption of Mary. The Church’s teaching on the assumption comes from early Christian beliefs and were only written down as doctrine when challenged by various heresies. These early beliefs were no doubt based upon tradition – not scripture. I think we should be clear about this.
Just my thoughts,
tmac1956
 
My dear friend in Christ,

Why do you and I have an intellect and “free-will?”:rolleyes:

After all, no other creatures of Gods great design have these “Godly attributes.” Might it be because God EXPECTS us to use them?::confused:

Mary’s Assumption is not simply a assumed fact. Luke Chapter 1 26 "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

So using our God given intellect, we understand “full” to mean just that, "full’ as in “no room for any thing else, including sin.” Now can we say the same thing with the same degree of certainity about the great prophet Elijah. No we cannot!

We also know that the Old Testament leads to fulfillment and perfection in the New Testament, because Christ Himself tells us so. Saint Paul explains that we are no longer “under the law,” but rather now we are under “grace.” Jesus Himself tells us that He came “to fulfill the law.”

Bibical facts show indispuitabily that Mary is the “Mother of God,”
can we agree on this point?

Have you had the opportunity to read Exodus Chapter 25:8 “And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. 9 According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle,” Verse 11: “And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about.”

Now why the instruction from our Almighty God for “pure gold.” Why did the gold “have to be” "pure? Why indeed. It “had to be pure because it was to hold the spiritual presence of God.”

Now if God demanded “pure” for His Holy Presence, and God filled Mary with sufficient grace that she
“was full of grace” it is because God could not and would not accept anything less for His very Son!🙂 Simple logic affirms this understanding.

It is no streach of the use of our intellect, that if God cared enough about Mary to select her “to be the Mother of God,” from the beginning of time, that God thought highly enough of Mary to have her impregnated "by the Holy Spirit, who too is God,then we are oviously dealing with a very unique (one of a kind) person, that God choose to honor in a most unique and singular way

Add to this the historically proveable fact that Mary’s grave has never been located. We have King David’s, we know where Moses was burried,we Know where Christ was burried, and we know where Mary lived and died, but we do not know where She was burried, because she was’nt.😉 She was born without the stain of sin and lived her intire life in complete compliance with God. She is the only “perfect one of the Father.” and He would not allow her to suffer the indingity of bodily coruption. Amen!

Read all of Exodus Chapter twenty-five and then read Luke Chapters one and two.

If God’s expectations for His "ark of the “old” covenant, had to be so special and spectular, how much more would He expect and do for His VERY REAL Presence, in the form of His Son? And would He not bestow singular honors on the Mother of His Son?

There is a issue of “faith” required from all of us. But it need not be “blind faith.” God shows us and tells us, we simply have to humble our wills and listen.👍

Your asking good questions, but are you really seeking the answers?😊

You might want to spend a bit more time reading the Catholic Catechism, which can be found on line and down loaded. It even has search capabilities. It answers a great many questions.

God bless you, and Mary our Blessed Mother (thats in the bible too) lead us to Jesus her Son.

Pat Miron
Marian Catecheist
 
Here in lies the problem. I believe that the OP inadvertently introduced an error into the premise. Catholics do not now, and have never claimed the bible as the sole rule of faith. Unfortunately, a direct scriptural connection is implied in the above. As has been stated ad-nauseum, RC’s hold to Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Majesterium.

While I do not agree with charlye’s position, I can understand why he is responding using the assumption of Mary. The Church’s teaching on the assumption comes from early Christian beliefs and were only written down as doctrine when challenged by various heresies. These early beliefs were no doubt based upon tradition – not scripture. I think we should be clear about this.
Just my thoughts,
tmac1956
That’s why I, as the OP wrote “biblical”, as in can be supported in scripture, although not explicitly.
 
N
By the way, you are the one who brought up Mary, not the OP. You are the one who has to answer my question.
sigh Yes, I did bring up Mary because in the original OP it was stated …

If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed "biblical".

So far no one has answered my question about the scriptural validity of the assumption. And since I asked the first question, I’ll wait until I get a biblically substantiated answer before yielding to your questions. 😉
 
That’s why I, as the OP wrote “biblical”, as in can be supported in scripture, although not explicitly.
Not to put too fine a point on this … but you didn’t mention “not explicitly” … you said biblically, which means it can be supported by scripture, period. By inserting “not explicitly” you give license to your sacred tradition which, in the majority of cases, overrides the word of God.
 
Not to put too fine a point on this … but you didn’t mention “not explicitly” … you said biblically, which means it can be supported by scripture, period. By inserting “not explicitly” you give license to your sacred tradition which, in the majority of cases, overrides the word of God.
Take out “…overrided the word of God.” and I’d agree. I stand clarified with “not explicitly”. Happy? 🙂 😉 My OP was more of a rant, so my bad if I wasn’t clear on that.

Now about that “overriding the word of God”, may I ask if you’re ever read a Catholic consilar or doctrinal or dogmatic writing, such as an encyclical? If there’s been one written without numerous references to scripture, I’d be very suprised (I haven’t as of yet read them all).

I’d be interested in seeing where you think Tradition “overrides” scripture. The Assumption of Mary isn’t a valid example, methinks, as I and others can provide scripture to back it up.

While you may not accept that scripture that we give as evidence…well…I guess you can argue that but it doesn’t change my assertion that Catholic Doctrine and Dogma are, although not necessarily explicitly, biblically based.

What many Protestants are surprised to find out is that the Magisterium just doesn’t make things up; that Scipture and Tradition go hand in hand; one doesn’t trump the other.
 
I’d be interested in seeing where you think Tradition “overrides” scripture. The Assumption of Mary isn’t a valid example, methinks, *as I and others can provide scripture to back it up. *
That was all I asked for … when may I expect such scriptural proof?
 
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. - Rev. 12:1
 
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. - Rev. 12:1
Thank you for your reply. I’ve heard this from other RC’s. And I will ask you the same question I’ve asked them … if this is indeed Mary, explain for me, if you can, how this relates to verse 6 … “the woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days”. Or, for that matter, verse 14. No RC would give me an answer.

If you read Rev 12 carefully, and in context, you will see that this woman represents Israel, who gave Christ to the world and who will be persecuted severely during the Tribulation.

Cherry picking verses from scripture to fit an agenda is like putting a band aid on cancer … it doesn’t work.
 
No real point here except that the oft-used arguement against Catholic teaching, “It’s not biblical” seem ever so to be a sham argument. This isn’t a new revelation to me, but perhaps I’m just tired and ornery this AM.

If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed “biblical”.
“It’s not biblical” most of the time means “It’s not explicitly in the Bible”. Even though it may be implied in the Bible, or based on something in the Bible, or Not be specifically forbidden by the Bible.
“It’s not biblical” is almost like a “fill in the blank question”
 
Cherry picking verses from scripture to fit an agenda is like putting a band aid on cancer … it doesn’t work.
“Cherry Picking”?

How about building a false salvation theology around this verse;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
That is cherry picking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top