Please - can we get to an adult level here?
You need to have two adults…we are apparently two adults shy.
And this is explains why you engaged me at an infantile level of interaction? OK let’s play your literalistic game. Where does scripture expand on what is permitted by the quoted verse?
You have apparently missed my point completely. You used a verse which has nothing to do with Mary to support the legitimacy of Marian apparitions.
For that matter where does scripture say that it is the sole word of God and where does it say “here is what constitutes scripture”?
I know its popular for amateur Protestant apologists to resolve all arguments to a sola scriptura framework but don’t you realize that its been defeated for centuries?
We aren’t discussing sola scriptura and were I Catholic, my point would still stand. There is nothing Marian in the surrounding text.
Prove to me that that verse has nothing to do with Mary. Do you claim Mary had nothing to do with Jesus and his mission on earth? Or do you imagine to know a-priori what revelations, prophesies and visions that the apostles were talking about? Do you have a crystal ball or a private hot line to God?
I am pretty sure we have already covered this a couple of times but here goes…the verse doesn’t exempt Mary, nor is there any reason to assume that she would be part of a vision considering there is nothing about Mary in the context. Context is important ya know?
So you admit the idea of Luther or Calvin or anyone that had anything to do with the Protestant Revolution appearing in the last days are unimportant to our salvation? Where they ever relevant or important? Who developed the doctrine of sola scriptura if it was never mentioned in the bible nor is there any history of it ever being a principal in the Early Church? You do know that the bible came around 350 years after the apostles all died don’t you and it was the Catholic Church who put it together?
What on earth are you talking about? Luther, Calvin, the Reformation, sola scriptura, history of the canon…none of this has anything to do with our discussion. The fact is that you took a verse way, way, way out of context to prove a point and this has nothing to do with the many topics you are seemingly trying to interject into the discussion.
It lends support to anything God wants to reveal in visions.
Okay, we agree at least on this.
One could attempt to use this to justify the false prophets that you mention but we know that false apparitions would have contradictory messages to the apostolic teaching - teaching that comes to us from The Catholic Church - some of which is written in the Catholic Bible. Do you use a real bible for scripture or do you have the Protestant book that is a tithe lite?
Yes, I realize that you believe that a few more books are inspired than I do but I don’t think any of the books you call the deutero’s will lend any help to you in establishing the verse from Acts is somehow useful in establishing the legitimacy of Marian apparitions.
I agree that context is important and that’s why its critical that you have the the right book to start with and the apostolic teaching that goes with it. Do you?
James
I’m sure you realize the verse you quoted from is in the book of Acts…common to both protestant and catholic canons…right?