First does it contridict scripture.... these supposed "contradictions" are they actual or is there a misinterpretation of the scripture and/or doctrine.
Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it's not true.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you.
Sorry, I hadnt seen your other posts.
Does that make it necessarily a correct doctrine?
I understand, but as we look at the facts,
if they dont seem to line up with Scripture,
then what?
Thanks,
sunlover
I dont know. Shall we look?First does it contridict scripture....
THATS what we should be looking at.these supposed "contradictions" are they actual or is there a misinterpretation of the scripture and/or doctrine.
Absolutely, amen.Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it's not true
There are writtings from 150 A.D. ish till 1854 A.D. about Mary and there probly will continue to be writtings. These writtings have been preserved and protected by the church over all these years. All have simular views about Mary. Its not that someone 2000 years ago said Mary was immaculatly conceived and it was passed down over 2000 years verbally through the church. It was all perserved in the writtings and teaching of theologians over the last 2000 years.dont know. Shall we look?
Your argument was that
"This doctrine was believed and carried on over the 1,854 years through tradition."
Absolutely, amen.
But if what IS in the Bible,
contradicts the doctrine,
then what?
That's what I wonder too.
sunlover
Which Christians have been doing now for over 2000yrs.
And the practice of not praying to them for less then that. I wonder who is redifining the words of Scripture? Peace
Take note of the day, folks: Ormly admits Catholicism IS 2000 years old.Christians?? You mean Catholics, don't you?
Take note of the day, folks: Ormly admits Catholicism IS 2000 years old.
Hoo Haa !
Indeed, I do. . . . in the pure sense of the word. I don't consider the RCC or EO catholic in the same sense.
"and blah, blah..."
- Taber (Christopher Lloyd) - "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"
There are writtings from 150 A.D. ish till 1854 A.D. about Mary and there probly will continue to be writtings.
Now we're going back to what other menThere are writtings from 150 A.D. ish till 1854 A.D. about Mary and there probly will continue to be writtings. These writtings have been preserved and protected by the church over all these years. All have simular views about Mary. Its not that someone 2000 years ago said Mary was immaculatly conceived and it was passed down over 2000 years verbally through the church. It was all perserved in the writtings and teaching of theologians over the last 2000 years.
So why not this doctrine?If a proposed Doctrine contradicts the bible then it is rejected and defined as a heresy. If it is not found in the bible explicitly, the church then refers back to tradition and looks at previous work that has been done on the subject.
When I asked, "Shall we take a look",
I meant at the Scripture.
For instance this passage:
What does this mean?
Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned...
LOLdunno, maybe "all men" does not include women?
Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned...
And to be a right standing member of said church one needs to accept all her doctrines/dogmas...In light of what is shown here one could surely and rightly suggest they are preaching a false gospel.Yet we see the reality, which is to disregard the Bible (as with the verse you've given us here) and build upon rationalizations instead. The idea of the "Immaculate Conception" is a very good example of the Bible saying one thing and the Tradition saying not something IN ADDITION but IN OPPOSITION.
Odd though, because it was throughAnd to be a right standing member of said church one needs to accept all her doctrines/dogmas...In light of what is shown here one could surely and rightly suggest they are preaching a false gospel.
Don't you EVER say anything funny?And to be a right standing member of said church one needs to accept all her doctrines/dogmas...In light of what is shown here one could surely and rightly suggest they are preaching a false gospel.
Thank you. In other words, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is NOT Apostolic, and as a result it CANNOT be doctrine that is necessary to believe......
A man wrote a letter to a small hotel in a Midwest town he planned to visit on his vacation. He wrote: "I would very much like to bring my dog with me. He is well-groomed and very well behaved. Would you be willing to permit me to keep him in my room with me at night?" An immediate reply came from the hotel owner, who said, "I've been operating this hotel for many years. In all that time, I've never had a dog steal towels, bedclothes, silverware or pictures off the walls. I've never had to evict a dog in the middle of the night for being drunk and disorderly. And I've never had a dog run out on a hotel bill. Yes, indeed, your dog is welcome at my hotel. And, if your dog will vouch for you, you're welcome to stay here, too."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?