Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

BobRyan said:

So when the group promoting a given doctrine says - we don't find this in the Bible and it has no historicity in the first century authors - well I think it is worth mentioning.

You might think that such a thing is what all churches do - but I beg to differ.

Click to expand...

Spare us the posturing, your chucrh embrces extra-biblical doctrines. Quote your "proof texts" and lets see how well they support your dogma; I can't do all the work. Show me where the Bible say your IJ will begin in 1844,. Show us where Jesus comes into your Heavenly Sanctuary. Show us the details, Bob. We'll wait.

BobRyan said:

I did not say that Catholics don't "believe" the doctrine - I said their own scholarship points out that they believe it no matter that they have no source for it in scripture and no historicity for it in the first century authors.

Click to expand...

Catholics believe the Word of God whether passed down orally or in writing. The deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. But what the Church can and does do is come to a greater understanding of the deposit of faith over time. The West and East established feast days, the feast of the Assumption started in the East. The understanding of the Assumption has been passed down through the Liturgy.

BobRyan said:

nope - we accept the 66 books of scripture based on a lot of evidence from the first century and in the NT text itself.

Click to expand...

The list of 66 books is not found in the Bible itself, your evidence is extra-Biblical. Nor is there anything in Holy Scripture to indicate it would take 1400 years or so to come up with the "correct" list of books of the Bible.

Valletta said:

Catholics believe the Word of God whether passed down orally or in writing. The deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. But what the Church can and does do is come to a greater understanding of the deposit of faith over time. The West and East established feast days, the feast of the Assumption started in the East. The understanding of the Assumption has been passed down through the Liturgy.



The list of 66 books is not found in the Bible itself, your evidence is extra-Biblical. Nor is there anything in Holy Scripture to indicate it would take 1400 years or so to come up with the "correct" list of books of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Also @Valletta @concretecamper and @chevyontheriver - correct me if I’m wrong, but if a Roman Catholic scholar denied the historicity of the Assumption, contrary to the infallible dogmatic definition of Pope Pius XII, would that not render them excommunicate or perhaps anathema?

From an Orthodox perspective, the Assumption, which in Eastern Orthodoxy is more commonly called the Dormition, but it refers to the same event, and in Oriental Orthodoxy the word “Assumption” is used, is extremely important to our faith and has been since the very early years of the Church. Indeed I am not aware of any sect other than the Antidicomarianites challenging its authenticity. I don’t think someone who denied that the Assumption happened would be allowed to receive the Eucharist in most Orthodox parishes, and scholars who taught that would not be able to teach courses at our seminaries, or receive an imprimatur for their writings, and clergy who took such a view would be making a career-limiting move.

And I suspect, as our Anglican friend @Jipsah has eloquently expressed, that an SDA theologian or pastor who denied the literal truth of the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement could look forward to a flourishing career in that denomination, either. I suspect they would need to move over to the Seventh Day Baptists.

BobRyan said:

Which is not a "funny kind of license" to make stuff up that is not in the Bible and has no historicity in actual first century NT teaching.

Click to expand...

My point being is that you give a pass to your own beliefs that are not explicitly in the Bible even though you are Bible-only. Yet you are finding fault with those who never claimed to be Bible-only because they believe truths that are not explicitly in the Bible, and Sola Scriptura is a belief that didn't take hold in Christian religions for well over a thousand years later. The Holy Trinity, which is not explicitly in the Bible, is not made-up stuff, it is a truth what was contained in the deposit of faith which ended with the death of the last Apostle, as was the Assumption. As time passes, as history shows, we can come to a deeper understanding of that deposit of faith. Let me ask you, where in the first century do you find the exact list of 66 books that you believe are the entirety of Holy Scripture?

BobRyan said:

Until you read the actual Bible chapters on those topics.



If one promises never to read Daniel 7, and never to read Rom 2, and never to read 2 Cor 5:10 ... etc then one could say "that doctrine is not in the remaining bits of the Bible I do choose to read".

Click to expand...

Or one could, more likely, say that other judgement and books, nothing about IJ is there at all. Daniel 7, for instance, abounds with references to judgement and books... and war, and all manner of fabulous and wholly symbolic creatures like flying lions, leopards, beasts with iron teeth and a great many horns. But there;'s nothing that really pertains to the SDA doctrine upon which it is presumably based.

Lookee here:

"There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle that the Lord set up and not humans. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. At His ascension, He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and, began His intercessory ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. \

That's the SDA explanation of Investigative Judgement. There doesn't seem to be much there that derives from Daniel, and much that seems not to have anything to do with anything in the Bible at all. Maybe you'd care to explain how that works.

But if one reads Daniel 7 they see a pre-advent judgment based out of the things written in books ("investigative" for those not opposed to that word, but pick any word you like).

Yeah, did that. And yes both books and judgement are mentioned. Pretty tenuous connection there, IMO.

BobRyan said:

So when the group promoting a given doctrine says - we don't find this in the Bible and it has no historicity in the first century authors - well I think it is worth mentioning.

Click to expand...

Again, y'all need to take the 2X4 from your own eye before you set out to worry about others.

BobRyan said:

You might think that such a thing is what all churches do - but I beg to differ.

Click to expand...

Begging is undignified, but you're free to differ all you like. Fact is that SDAs have doctrines, notably that one, that have no basis in Scripture. "Book look, there are places in Scripture where some of the very same words are used!" is an afterthought used to give a novel doctrine an appearance of legitimacy.

BobRyan said:

I said "their own Catholic scholarship on the subject of the historicity of Marian doctrine - points out that they believe it no matter that they have no source for it in scripture and no historicity for it in the first century authors" - as we all can see in the OP.

Click to expand...

Holy Tradition, Bob. SDAs don't accept it, duly noted. Then again, SDAs believe in a good bit of stuff that very few other Christian groups accept at all. It kind of evens out, dosn't it?

BobRyan said:

Ok so actual research and published Catholic scholarship ON the very subject (the historicity of Marian doctrine) should be ignored if someone waves their hand away from it? Seriously??

Click to expand...

Truth is, almost no one cares, and you care only insofar as it seems to you like a stick to beat the Catholics with.

BobRyan said:

Raymond Brown --

"An American Sulpician priest and prominent biblical scholar. He was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote studies on the birth and death of Jesus.

Click to expand...

That's nice. I'm sure he's an erudite and thoughtful man.

BobRyan said:

Our doctrines are based in scripture and have historicity in the actual teaching of Bible authors.

Click to expand...

..and Ellen White, who is where Investive Judgement comne from.

BobRyan said:

As this thread shows -- created at Jipsah's request -- Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

Click to expand...

Better expound on Daniel 7, for us. I'm not seeing IJ there. Maybe I just lack imagination.

BobRyan said:

A lot of Churches stand on that position and still differences exist. But this thread is about the case of a denomination's own scholarship admitting that some segment of their doctrines do NOT have basis in scripture or historicity in first century sources.

Click to expand...

Holy Tradition, Bob. Your lot doesn't accept it, except as it establishes the Canon of Scripture (and then you have to claim you don't, because, well, you have to.)

BobRyan said:

Ok so actual research and published Catholic scholarship ON the very subject (the historicity of Marian doctrine) should be ignored if someone waves their hand away from it? Seriously??

Click to expand...

I didn’t say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. This is like the third time in the course of this thread that you have either attributed to me something I did not actually write, or otherwise misquoted me (for example, when you truncated a sentence I wrote, so that it looked like I wrote something other than what I actually posted). I told you then that i would require you not to do that, and now I must tell you that I insist you not misquote me at all, or otherwise impute meanings to my post other than what I literally wrote. If in fact I am using a figure of speech, I will make that clear when we debate for your convenience.

As it happens, the reason why I asked our Roman Catholic friends @Valletta @chevyontheriver and @concretecamper the question that I did, that being, whether or not if a scholar denied a doctrine pronounced by the Pope as ex cathedra, if that might cause them to become excommunicate or anathema, had nothing to do with suggesting that we delete such research of theirs, of ignore it in an ecumenical context, which I would be opposed to.

BobRyan said:

You have a tradition that you follow - my OP does not deny that you follow some tradition.

Click to expand...

Which apparently you would pretend that you do not. Then again, the prophetic pronouncements of Ellen White may not strictly be considered traditions, although they are most certainly extra-biblical.

BobRyan said:

But that is not what this thread is about.

Click to expand...

So we've been over. The purpose was to accuse the Roman Catholics of embracing doctrines not found in the Bible. Which, of course, they freely admit, since they honor Holy Tradition. What you're unwilling or unable to admit is that what the SDA counts as one of the "Pillars of Adventism" is a doctrine that does not appear anywhere in Holy Writ.

BobRyan said:

BobRyan said:
Ok so actual research and published Catholic scholarship ON the very subject (the historicity of Marian doctrine) should be ignored if someone waves their hand away from it? Seriously??

Click to expand...

Can SDA belief in the wholly non-scriptural doctrine of "Investigative Judgement" be ignored because they claim that it's supported by Scriptures that say nothing of the kind?

And can going out of your way to find fault with someone else's doctrines as unscriptural, when you consider an unscriptural doctrine a backbone of your own faith, not be more than a bit hypocritical?

BobRyan said:

The idea that no one cares that certain doctrines you hold have no historicity in the first century NT church and no basis in scripture sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Click to expand...

Speaking of wishful thnking, do you really expect to sell the idea that IJ is somehow found in Scripture? For crying out loud, man, even you haven't offered to expound on how Daniel 7 supports your claim by mentioning judgement and books being opened. That looks amazingingly like it was a product of a word search, where the context of those words was wholly ignored! Have you read Daniel 7?

BobRyan said:

But WERE it TRUE -- then posts such as yours would be saying something like "I say YES indeed to your OP - THANK you for posting it.

Click to expand...

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But the fact is that, as usual, you're badmouthing Catholics, and failed to consider that: while Catholics have no problem at all basing a dogma on Holy Tradition, you lot loudly declare your devotion to sola scriptura. That, while one of the very pillars of your faith is a doctrine that has little or no support in Scripture at all, and appears to have come straight from a revelation from your very own prophet.

Think "glass houses", Bob. Think "motes and beams". Think "physician, heal thyself". Think "hoist on your own petard".

BobRyan said:

Instead - notice that your almost every post - is a form of complaint.

Click to expand...

Seems that this thread began with you complaining about a Roman Catholic dogma that offends SDA sensibilities. Your complaint is duly noted, as is its hypocritical nature.

BobRyan said:

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader

Click to expand...

I'm sure this thread will persuade multitudes to flee the Catholic Church and run headlong to the SDAs for refuge. Or not. <Laugh

BobRyan said:

You claim that affirming a well honored Catholic Scholar is to "beat the Catholics"

Click to expand...

Nope, he simply noted that the Assumption has no Biblical or 1st Century basis. The belief is based on tradition (we've been over this a time or three, haven't we?), which, for Catholics, Roman and otherwise, can be a perfectly fine basis for a doctrine. You share that belief as touching the Canon of Scripture, which you accept as the Catholics have given it to you, so your objections to other doctrines based on tradition ring pretty hollow. It's all just the same old "them bad Catholics..." that seem to be another of Adventism's nonscriptural "pillars".

BobRyan said:

has yet to have an ounce of logic associated with it as to how such an odd idea even comes about.

Click to expand...

I'm sure all of the world's roughly 1,350,000,000 (latest figures) Catholics (which for some reason doesn't include the world's 110,000,000 Anglicans) will be desolated to hear that.

BobRyan said:

Read the actual thread and try to make your case if you think that your conclusion holds up.

Click to expand...

I did, it does.

BobRyan said:

There is a thread for that discussion - that you are avoiding.

Click to expand...

Hey, you chose the topic, and I haven't strayed from it.

BobRyan said:

In the meantime the OP for this thread stays on topic.

Click to expand...

I think that subject has been addressed quite succinctly; you just don't like the answer.

BobRyan said:

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.

Click to expand...

It isn't. You thought you'd found fodder for some good old "them bad Catholics..." posturing, and it went south on you. Sorry mate, you chose poorly.

Does it make sense that a sinful corrupt body is not the vessel the Lord would choose to come to Earth through? Also, were you aware that Christianity existed almost 400 years before the Biblical NT Canon was set? Did they have no idea what they were talking about those first 4 decades? Excuse Me centuries?

The Liturgist said:

I didn’t say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. This is like the third time in the course of this thread that you have either attributed to me something I did not actually write, or otherwise misquoted me (for example, when you truncated a sentence I wrote, so that it looked like I wrote something other than what I actually posted). I told you then that i would require you not to do that, and now I must tell you that I insist you not misquote me at all, or otherwise impute meanings to my post other than what I literally wrote. If in fact I am using a figure of speech, I will make that clear when we debate for your convenience.

As it happens, the reason why I asked our Roman Catholic friends @Valletta @chevyontheriver and @concretecamper the question that I did, that being, whether or not if a scholar denied a doctrine pronounced by the Pope as ex cathedra, if that might cause them to become excommunicate or anathema, had nothing to do with suggesting that we delete such research of theirs, of ignore it in an ecumenical context, which I would be opposed to.

Click to expand...

I met Raymond E. Brown. Talked with him. Read almost every book he ever wrote. I’ve got a copy of his PhD thesis. He was very careful in his words and his positions. It’s mostly the people not careful enough in reading him that try to make him say what he would never have intended to say. I am not a disciple of Raymond E. Brown by any means but I find the use of him in this thread to be specious silliness.