C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Is this a public admission that you are Oldscholar or that you and he share the same accounts against forum rules?CentralFLJames:
:banghead:
James
- Status
James
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Great question!
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hogwash! I personally carefully study to show my self approve unto God rightly dividing the word of truth, and it was as a result of that very study (ever ongoing) that I came to reject the errors of the reformation and their modern step children and embrace the factually accurate teachings of the Catholic faith. It was really very simple…one compares the Bible to what is taught and what the Christian church has taught and written for 2,000 years and then compare it to modern teachings and the community with the closer adherence to those things is the original full gospel church…in this case the Catholic Church.
Deception: Yeah it’s out there alright.More hogwash! I’m glad you chose to use the epistle of St. Jude as your citation, because it is his that clearly shows the reliance of the Lord and the apostles on Sacred Tradition in that he cites three different traditional texts for information directly related to his teaching.Unqualified assumption, since you do not know that because you nor anyone else can assert that St, Jude knew or didn’t know. However, I might point out that it is very likely that The Blessed Virgin was still alive at the time of his letter, in which case he would not write about it because it simply had not yet occurred.If you say so…I sure haven’t seen it. However, I would also point out that Mary is the second most unique person in all of human history behind only Our Lord Himself and if God chose to assume the few named patriarchs and prophets of the OT that He did then it is quite logical that He did the same with the Blessed Virgin for those same reasons. Bear in mind that the New Testament also says that many saints rose from the dead and were seen in Jerusalem after Our Lord died. (Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, 53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.)
If these arose, then why NOT the Blessed Virgin assumed?! O ye of little faith…Not true and your own citation refutes you.Yet you will tell us that your interpretation is inspired by the Holy Spirit even though it contradicts the New Testament and the writings of the early church as well as 2,000 years of Christian teaching. (Not to mention even other n-C Christian communities) How then can yours be correct much less infallible? You are wrong to try to argue that since you have far less credibility on your best day than the Catholic Church does on its worst. :shrug:If you want to use that as an argument then you need to forsake your current beliefs because it is far more than just any one person’s understanding that Sola Scriptura and all the cascading errors derived from it “was not always believed in the church”, in fact, it was never believed by either the New Testament writers nor by the ECF. Here again, your own argument refutes you.No…the fact is that that began in Matthew 16:18-20.In this sense, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is both. The principle of Gos assuming those He chooses who have served faithfully is well established in the Old Testament, and the accounts of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin are of course extra biblical and embraced by the church which is fine since nowhere in the Word of God does it say that scripture is either the sole source or authority for all that Christians believe. That’s a modern new wind of doctrinal error and a teaching of man.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Here is a continuation of this thread - “**non-Catholic Christians - “Did You Know”?” **
This thread has reached 1000 replies and will probably be closed soon…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232131
This thread has reached 1000 replies and will probably be closed soon…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232131
J
justasking4
Guest
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Thanks JimmyB, but I will probably be withdrawing since this thread has become nothing more than just another personal soapbox for Justasking4 to post his anti-Catholic and circular rhetoric. I feel like we are all here trying to perform an exorcism on one person and no one else is getting anything out of this except a lot of wasted time. I don’t want to feed this guy’s ego and insincerity anymore. Most of us could do better by spending our precious time on those who genuinely want to learn the faith rather than a committed anti-Catholic. There are no new debates or arguments that JA4 presents that we have never seen before. We have soundly defended the faith and proved him wrong over and over yet he just wants to run in circles with it.
James
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I understand …Peace
T
Tomster
Guest
James,
I could be mistaken here, but I do not think that JA IV,
, has ever told us what church he is a member of. I do remember asking him for his definition of “church” but he never answered it. I think he has just set himself up as the leader of his own one-man denomination. Scarey thought.
J
justasking4
Guest
T
Tomster
Guest
Any supernatural religion that renounces its claim to infallibility, it is clear, can profess to be a semi-revelation only. It is a hybrid thing, partly natural and partly supernatural, and it thus practically has all the qualities of a religion that is wholly natural. Insofar as it professes to be revealed, it of course professes to be infallible, but if the revealed part be in the first place hard to distinguish, and in the second place hard to understand; if it may mean many things, and many of these things contradictory, it might as well never have been made at all. To make it in any sense an infallible revelation at all to us, we need a power to intepret the testament that will have equal authority with the testament itself.
God in His wisdom has given us that power in the magisterium of the Church, defined as the authority of the Church, by divine appointment, to teach the truths of the Holy Faith; the commission of the Church to teach; the teaching office of the Church.
By your own admission, you’re not it.
T
Tomster
Guest
What is interesting, though, is that your dogma makes no distinction between an inerrant Bible and its fallible readers. The latter, exercising talents and capacities they do not have - an impossibility - manage yet another impossibile feat: they make the inerrant Bible yield up error.
J
justasking4
Guest
Your saying a lot here. I don’t see how it follows that “To make it in any sense an infallible revelation at all to us, we need a power to intepret the testament that will have equal authority with the testament itself?”
Secondly, your church has never infallibly interpreted the entire NT or OT anyway. Does this mean you don’t have any understanding what the parts of the Scriptures it has never interpreted mean?
J
justasking4
Guest
What dogma of mine are you referring to?
I need an answer to my previous question above before i can answer this.
T
Tomster
Guest
There are a lot of things that you do not see.
T
Tomster
Guest
And I am still waiting for your definition of “church.”
J
justasking4
Guest
I either don’t see or you are seeing things not there. We both cannot be right.
T
Tomster
Guest
You must read post # 1008 in its entirety. Do not gloss over it. Think about it and how it applies to you.
J
justasking4
Guest
i think this is a good definition:
The word “church” comes from the Greek “ekklesia” which means “gathering” or “assembly.” Therefore, the church is the gathering of the believers who come together to participate in fellowship with one another as they worship God and hear from His Word, the Bible. The church as a whole has been equipped by with people possessing different spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:5-8). The purpose of the gifts is “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ,” (Eph. 4:12-13).
J
justasking4
Guest
The problem is that its faulty reasoning. Christ never promised His church would be infallible. Look at your church history. The pope for example was not always thought to be infallible. Secondly, your church has erred many times in the past. These 2 things alone should tell you that no church can trruly claim to be infallible.You must read post # 1008 in its entirety. Do not gloss over it. Think about it and how it applies to you.
S
Seagirt
Guest
YES, very well said. The whole thrust of the loaves and fishes miracle and the 6th chapter of JOHN is that the body and blood of Christ are to be eaten and are not just a symbol of a past event.
There is an anti-Physical bias in most all of Protestant thinking that borders on the gnostic. You can see it by the many Protestant posters here. Even the Incarnation is mis-interpreted by some Protestant thinking. God became man. That Biblical. But Protestantism does not want to touch the reality of what that really means. " even the cooking pots will be holy" as Zephania says.!
- Status