Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AuntT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now, if you only applied that wonderful logical brain of yours that you claim to have, you’d be able to see Mary as Catholics do in the Gospel as well. But then again, the Catholic Church has defined the dogma of Mary for you too.

Why do you accept one and refuse the other I wonder?

Pride?

Arrogance?

Intellectual dishonesty?
Dishonesty is how you wont answer why you think Christ is a pagan. Apparently He taught there were three gods. I am STILL waiting for you to explain yourself. All the personal atatcks you want to give are no answer to this, which YOU put forward.
 
And yet you STILL evade the obvious…I think you have shown your lack of understanding of Scripture pretty well. I dont need that, God gave us logic and reason.
avenger;4486151:
SO again, why, in your opinion, was Christ a pagan?
Take a hike and go fishing somehwere else. You seriously think I that can be baited that easily :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Scripture - I accept every word of it without question.

But I ahve something you lack - and it shows:

The Magesterium of The Catholic Church and Sacred tradition. I am the richer for you, you are the poorer.
 
avenger;4486151:
And yet you STILL evade the obvious…I think you have shown your lack of understanding of Scripture pretty well. I dont need that, God gave us logic and reason.

Take a hike and go fishing somehwere else. You seriously think I that can be baited that easily :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Scripture - I accept every word of it without question.

But I ahve something you lack - and it shows:

The Magesterium of The Catholic Church and Sacred tradition. I am the richer for you, you are the poorer.
I am rich because of my lack of your Magesterium. But I guess you cant get yourself out of the bind your own words put yourself in. Yes, maybe your hierarchy can come to your rescue, because you cannt defend your own conclusion yourself. I wonder how they would feel if they knew you thought Christ called for baptizing in the name of three gods?
 
Ag_not;4486175:
I am rich because of my lack of your Magesterium. But I guess you cant get yourself out of the bind your own words put yourself in. Yes, maybe your hierarchy can come to your rescue, because you cannt defend your own conclusion yourself. I wonder how they would feel if they knew you thought Christ called for baptizing in the name of three gods?
Answer the question put to you or give it a rest - HOW does the co-joiner ‘‘AND’’ make it an EMPIRICAL FACT that The Father AND Son AND Holy Spirit are ONE.

The point is, and this is the ONLY point - is it doesn’t, if it is left to one to interpret for themselves. It is NOT at all obvious - from that piece of scripture.

The Doctrine and Dogma of God as Trinity was defined by The Catholic Church Fathers and ratified by them. Did you read in the article I quoted you that liberal protestants REJECT the idea of the TRINITY specifically because it is NOT Scripturally obvious? No, I guess not.

But you are of a denomination that accepts the truth of the Trinity. Great. But you didn’t come to it by your own logic that’s for sure, so you answered the earlier question about arrogance and intellectual dishonesty. Because it is NOT spelled out in the scriptures.

So, you accept Catholic Church teaching on the Trinity, but reject Catholic Church teaching on Mary. Again, the question is why do you pick and chose?

My guess is for a faith that is EASY.
 
avenger;4486195:
Answer the question put to you or give it a rest - HOW does the co-joiner ‘‘AND’’ make it an EMPIRICAL FACT that The Father AND Son AND Holy Spirit are ONE.

The point is, and this is the ONLY point - is it doesn’t, if it is left to one to interpret for themselves. It is NOT at all obvious - from that piece of scripture.

The Doctrine and Dogma of God as Trinity was defined by The Catholic Church Fathers and ratified by them. Did you read in the article I quoted you that liberal protestants REJECT the idea of the TRINITY specifically because it is NOT Scripturally obvious
? No, I guess not.

But you are of a denomination that accepts the truth of the Trinity. Great. But you didn’t come to it by your own logic that’s for sure, so you answered the earlier question about arrogance and intellectual dishonesty. Because it is NOT spelled out in the scriptures.

So, you accept Catholic Church teaching on the Trinity, but reject Catholic Church teaching on Mary. Again, the question is why do you pick and chose?

My guess is for a faith that is EASY.

I guess we’re done. I ANSWERED how, logic and rules of grammar, very easily done. You refuse to justify your conclusion that Christ was a pagan, and still go forward with a circular argument based on your need to have others do your thinking for you. So, since you STILL refuse to answer and defend your erroneous conclusion that Christ was a pagan, and since I HAVE answered your question TWICE, I am done with you.
 
Ag_not;4486242:
I guess we’re done. I ANSWERED how, logic and rules of grammar, very easily done. You refuse to justify your conclusion that Christ was a pagan, and still go forward with a circular argument based on your need to have others do your thinking for you. So, since you STILL refuse to answer and defend your erroneous conclusion that Christ was a pagan, and since I HAVE answered your question TWICE, I am done with you.
Ok mods, hit me hard as you like for this one 😛

avenger, you didnt answer my question, I told you you can’t bait me, and for constantly trying to divert from the questions put to you by continuing to bait me, you are a first rate, gold star prat of the month.

Anyone that thinks, no believes, that rules of grammar and LOGIC can define, clarify and elucidate what is a MYSTERY OF FAITH ie Trinity, is just laugh out loud idiotic.

You’re not done with me - I’m done with you.

plonk

That was the sound of you going on my ignore list 👍
 
very nice work, but it still does not disprove anything I have stated. You mention a few Scripture lines, but an Immaculate Conception and Assumption they do not make. Again, why wasnt this included in Scripture that was written after the fact, actually, at the time of a few of the other references you provided? The problem is, you confuse veneration and honor with dogma. I am not in any way trying to detract from Mary’s unique role in salvation history, but you need to keep it accurate. The Catholic church, in declaring its dogmas and in its out of balance emphasis on Mariology does not do this. They constantly skirt the edge of the envelope and fliort with co-Redemptrix status. Indeed, this is often implied, if not stated directly.
All you have said is that Scripture doesn’t explicitly state that Mary was immaculately conceived and assumed into heaven. But Scripture does implicitly reveal that the Almighty has done these “great things” for Mary, the Mother of our Lord. These truths have gradually been explicitly revealed through the medium of Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium as have been the truths with regard to the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, and the ontological deity of the Holy Spirit: truths the Jews still reject. Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition by the teaching authority of the one Catholic Apostolic Church. The scriptural passages I provided reveal how the Marian doctrines are true. Tradition is the deeds of God wrought in the history of salvation, which are associated with the life and teachings of Christ. Meanwhile the Assumption of Mary was not explicitly recorded in the scriptures probably because God had judged it was too soon to reveal this truth at a time when it was necessary to first convince the world that Christ had actually risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. Jesus has always been the center of our faith.

PAX :harp:
 
"These truths have gradually been explicitly revealed through the medium of Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium…’

You mean distorted, dont you?
 
Well, I thought that would help you understand. I was wrong. Let me ask this one: are you of Jewish ancestry or did your ancesters become Christain at another time. Either way, do you follow the Mosaic food laws? If not, why not?
 
Well, I thought that would help you understand. I was wrong. Let me ask this one: are you of Jewish ancestry or did your ancesters become Christain at another time. Either way, do you follow the Mosaic food laws? If not, why not?
No and no. Do you have both hands and eyes, since I am sure you are a sinner like the rest of us, did Christ not command you to put them out and chop them off? Dont play semantic games please. Why do you have Mass on Sunday and not Saturday? You really want to play it this way?
 
Since I do not think such authority was given, I am willing to deny ALL dogmas pronounced by your Church.
I also found avenger’s statement very strange. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, I guess he meant that whether or not something has been dogmatically defined, doesn’t make any difference to whether he believes it or denies it. (Presumably he doesn’t mean that he automatically denies something because the RCC has dogmatically defined it.)
 
very nice work, but it still does not disprove anything I have stated. You mention a few Scripture lines, but an Immaculate Conception and Assumption they do not make. Again, why wasnt this included in Scripture that was written after the fact, actually, at the time of a few of the other references you provided?
Probably because the Apostles didn’t want to make it a require belief.
 
No and no. Do you have both hands and eyes, since I am sure you are a sinner like the rest of us, did Christ not command you to put them out and chop them off? Dont play semantic games please. Why do you have Mass on Sunday and not Saturday?
I think you just supported ralphinal’s argument.
 
Not supported in Scripture
At least, not by your interpretation of the Scriptures. However, since the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics, there is nothing in the Scripture that contradicts Catholic teaching. How could it? They both come from the same Source!
Not mentioned in Scripture
Well, we read it differently. 😃
 
At least, not by your interpretation of the Scriptures. However, since the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics, there is nothing in the Scripture that contradicts Catholic teaching. How could it? They both come from the same Source!

Well, we read it differently. 😃
Which “Catholics” wrote the Bible? Christians, yes. Catholics, thats a stretch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top