Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

Agreed.

Is that what you realy mean, or do you mean that this passage is somehow unconvincing?:
2Tim3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

so we can conclude (if the scripture can lead us to perfection) that Christ is not needed.




Inference is not explicit; if dogma (as said here) requires explicit attestation, re: this matter there can be no dogmatic statement made on the matter.

Well, on top of that last passage, we have the Berean example:
Acts 17:10-15 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Do you need more?

So these, who were like Thomas, are our greatest example ? This equates
literacy with blessedness. What of those who believe without searching (or can't read) ?

Also, the adjective "noble" does not - in the Greek - refer to their searching. There is a problem in verse 11: ostis is translated as "in that they". In fact, ostis is a pronoun -- yet your translation has it as a preposition and two pronouns. In the KJV, this passage is the only time in the NT that ostis is translated as more than a simple pronoun. This changes the application of the adjective eugenia (well born). Look at the societal rank of those in the later passages -- same social status.

 

[MamaZ]

IF something cannot be proven then we can cast it away from us as being rumor.. False doctrine. For one needs to check what is being taught with the scriptures to see if what is being said has actually been recorded as truth. For Jesus tells us what is truth. Gods word. We see that the Apostle writings in the scripture and we see that Paul with the power of the Holy Spirit said that all scripture is inspired by God.. We see in the OT also that they were to keep to what was written. God is unchangeable in His decree's . For He has said I change not..

 

[lionroar0]

IF something cannot be proven then we can cast it away from us as being rumor.. False doctrine. For one needs to check what is being taught with the scriptures to see if what is being said has actually been recorded as truth. For Jesus tells us what is truth. Gods word. We see that the Apostle writings in the scripture and we see that Paul with the power of the Holy Spirit said that all scripture is inspired by God.. We see in the OT also that they were to keep to what was written. God is unchangeable in His decree's . For He has said I change not..

That's the point

God can't be proven. He can't be qualified. He can't be quantified.

Faith can't be qualified or quantified. It can be shown with reason.

Hince the dbl standard.

You are asking for "prove" of "faith."

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

That's the point

God can't be proven. He can't be qualified. He can't be quantified.

Faith can't be qualified or quantified. It can be shown with reason.

Hince the dbl standard.

You are asking for "prove" of "faith."

Peace

God can be proven. Tee hee. It takes a mighty creator to create what we have around us.. It is difinitly detailed even in the smallest of things.. To have faith is know what you have faith in.. Can this that you have faith in be proven? For faith comes how? By hearing and doing the word of God. Faith is not blind.. Someone may come and tell you the moon is made of green cheese.. So just because it was said does not make it so unless it comes from the mouth of God. For there is only one truth..

 

[MamaZ]

Kind of like the LDS believing that there were men on the Moon wearing quaker hats or something.This was their faith.. It was said.. Many of men have been on the moon.. NO giants in quaker hats..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It has been stated by some that Mary is a PV.. This is to be believed. In fact because of this statement many hold Mary to a position that cannot be proven by scripture.

1. Of course, Mary's sex practices with her husband after Jesus was born is entirely moot to anything, entirely a private and personal issue between these spouses, and as we've witnessed, NONE of the Catholics and Orthodox brothers and sisters here are insisting that it is a matter of great LOVE (the issue of this thread) that all 6.5 billion people on the planet know - as a matter of highest importance and certainty - how often they have sex with their spouse. So I think we're all left scratching our heads wondering why and how they are dogmatically certain that Mary completely disagrees with their feelings on this point, they are dogmatically certain that she does NOT regard this insistence about her sex life with her husband as a violation of marital privacy and respect, she is not offended or hurt or embarrassed or just feels it's not a matter of highest importance for all - even kids - to KNOW (or they are heretics whose salvation is thus in question) BUT, rather, they are dogmatically CERTAIN that she regards it as SURPREMELY and DISTINCTIVELY LOVING and RESPECTFUL to her that these denominations are obsessed with this aspect of surpeme intimacies with her spouse. Remember t he issue of this thread: Is this LOVING toward her.


2. The Catholics here are playing loosely with a double standard. They are TRYING to argue that since the rumor is popular and the ones spreading it say it's true (without a shred of anything to support that), THEREFORE it needs no substantiation and we should (at least) tolerate it and accept it as "possible." I remind them that the RCC and EO do NOT regard the issue of whether Mary and Joseph EVER (even once) lovingly shared marital intimacies as a pious opinion or a possibility - it's DOGMA. They want all to ignore that. If you understand what is meant by Mary Had No Sex EVER and deny that it's dogma, you are a heretic and as my Catholic priest once stressed, "Heaven is not populated by heretics."


3. They are also playing loose with a double standard because thy don't allow any other what it insists we allow it. The RCC has a LONG history of holding EVERYONE accountable for what they teach - right here, right now (NOT only by God on judgement day!). When one says something (even NOT as dogma), it requires such be authenticated and supported - and it doesn't hesitate to judge is such is sufficient and if it is not, the RCC has a LONG history of inquasisions, proclaimations of heresy and anthamas, even of dispatching them to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke - all this before any Protestant denomination even existed. With this INSISTANCE (even to the point of death) that ALL must be able to substantiate their teachings as correct, members of that very denomination are taking a view 180 degress opposite of the Denomination they belong to - and insisting, "Hey, MY views don't need to be substantiated only everyone else's views!!!" Is anyone else amazed by the double standard here, the "one rule for me, the opposite for everyone else?"


4. I don't think the RCC on this is being held to any standard higher than it holds noncatholics - in fact, I think Protestants are holding the RCC to a much lower standard, being much easier on Catholics than they on us. All we've been asking for is some substantiation (just as it does of us - we aren't right cuz we say we are, so the RCC is not right cuz it says it is) - and that that substantiation be to a level required of a matter of highest importance and certainty (to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thus in question) AND of a nature that the RCC itself accepts as valid from noncatholics. No double standards, not all this " One Rule for me, the opposite for everyone else." Don't forget: This is THEIR dogma. The RCC is the one INSISTING to the highest possible level that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The 'burden of proof' is entirely and only in it's court. It's the RCC that needs to substantiate the story becuase, in the official view of the RCC itself, to spread an unsubstantiated story is a SIN and thus UNLOVING (the issue of this thread). THAT IS THE ISSUE. Don't allow all their double standards and diversions and evasions and running down rabbit holes allow them to get away with the very thing they've burned people for doing.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

California Josiah --

can you disprove the teachings of The DaVinci Code, or do you advocate that they can be held by Christians as a "pious opinion" ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. Of course, Mary's sex practices with her husband after Jesus was born is entirely moot to anything, entirely a private and personal issue between these spouses, and as we've witnessed, NONE of the Catholics and Orthodox brothers and sisters here are insisting that it is a matter of great LOVE (the issue of this thread) that all 6.5 billion people on the planet know - as a matter of highest importance and certainty - how often they have sex with their spouse. So I think we're all left scratching our heads wondering why and how they are dogmatically certain that Mary completely disagrees with their feelings on this point, they are dogmatically certain that she does NOT regard this insistence about her sex life with her husband as a violation of marital privacy and respect, she is not offended or hurt or embarrassed or just feels it's not a matter of highest importance for all - even kids - to KNOW (or they are heretics whose salvation is thus in question) BUT, rather, they are dogmatically CERTAIN that she regards it as SURPREMELY and DISTINCTIVELY LOVING and RESPECTFUL to her that these denominations are obsessed with this aspect of surpeme intimacies with her spouse. Remember t he issue of this thread: Is this LOVING toward her.


2. The Catholics here are playing loosely with a double standard. They are TRYING to argue that since the rumor is popular and the ones spreading it say it's true (without a shred of anything to support that), THEREFORE it needs no substantiation and we should (at least) tolerate it and accept it as "possible." I remind them that the RCC and EO do NOT regard the issue of whether Mary and Joseph EVER (even once) lovingly shared marital intimacies as a pious opinion or a possibility - it's DOGMA. They want all to ignore that. If you understand what is meant by Mary Had No Sex EVER and deny that it's dogma, you are a heretic and as my Catholic priest once stressed, "Heaven is not populated by heretics."


3. They are also playing loose with a double standard because thy don't allow any other what it insists we allow it. The RCC has a LONG history of holding EVERYONE accountable for what they teach - right here, right now (NOT only by God on judgement day!). When one says something (even NOT as dogma), it requires such be authenticated and supported - and it doesn't hesitate to judge is such is sufficient and if it is not, the RCC has a LONG history of inquasisions, proclaimations of heresy and anthamas, even of dispatching them to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke - all this before any Protestant denomination even existed. With this INSISTANCE (even to the point of death) that ALL must be able to substantiate their teachings as correct, members of that very denomination are taking a view 180 degress opposite of the Denomination they belong to - and insisting, "Hey, MY views don't need to be substantiated only everyone else's views!!!" Is anyone else amazed by the double standard here, the "one rule for me, the opposite for everyone else?"


4. I don't think the RCC on this is being held to any standard higher than it holds noncatholics - in fact, I think Protestants are holding the RCC to a much lower standard, being much easier on Catholics than they on us. All we've been asking for is some substantiation (just as it does of us - we aren't right cuz we say we are, so the RCC is not right cuz it says it is) - and that that substantiation be to a level required of a matter of highest importance and certainty (to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thus in question) AND of a nature that the RCC itself accepts as valid from noncatholics. No double standards, not all this " One Rule for me, the opposite for everyone else." Don't forget: This is THEIR dogma. The RCC is the one INSISTING to the highest possible level that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The 'burden of proof' is entirely and only in it's court. It's the RCC that needs to substantiate the story becuase, in the official view of the RCC itself, to spread an unsubstantiated story is a SIN and thus UNLOVING (the issue of this thread). THAT IS THE ISSUE. Don't allow all their double standards and diversions and evasions and running down rabbit holes allow them to get away with the very thing they've burned people for doing.



.

can you disprove the teachings of The DaVinci Code, or do you advocate that they can be held by Christians as a "pious opinion" ?

The DaVinci Code is not an authority the RCC permits Protestants to use - nor any other book outside of the biblcial canon, thus I will not permit you to use it as substantiation for the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER. Nice try, though...


It's YOUR dogma. This story about an intensively intimate , extremely personal, very private and with an enormous potential to hurt and offend aspect Mary's marriage. The RCC officially insists that to spread a story that is not substantiated is a SIN and I'm sure you agree to sin against someone is not to LOVE them (the issue of this thread).




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

speaking for Josiah & myself because we are not requiring scriptural statements of the fact, we are looking for ANY statement of the fact that could be remotely considered plausible.

And for over 150 pages, all we've gotten is "the ones spreading the rumor say it's true." Odd, because the RCC doesn't accept this apologetic from anyone else (it has dispatched some to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for one saying something without adequate substantiation to support the view).

I've NOT required that the dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER be substantiated by Scripture Alone or even by Mary and/or Joseph (the only two people that would know if it's true). I've ONLY asked for substantiation of a level required of a dogma and of a nature that the RCC itself accepts from others. So far, for 150 pages, we've just received apologetics that the RCC itself condemns, rejects and ridicules so it's probably appropriate for non Catholics to do the same?



Let us NOT FORGET:

1. The issue of this thread is: Is the dogmatic spreading of this extremely intimate, personal and moot story about Mary's sex practices distinctively LOVING?

2. There is only one dogma from 2 or 3 denominations on this issue, and the "burden of proof" - the necessity of substantiate - is entirely theirs.

3. The RCC officially insists that to spread a story that is unsubstantiated is a SIN.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

The DaVinci Code is not an authority the RCC permits Protestants to use - nor any other book outside of the biblcial canon, thus I will not permit you to use it as substantiation for the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER. Nice try, though...


It's YOUR dogma. This story about an intensively intimate , extremely personal, very private and with an enormous potential to hurt and offend aspect Mary's marriage. The RCC officially insists that to spread a story that is not substantiated is a SIN and I'm sure you agree to sin against someone is not to LOVE them (the issue of this thread).




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah


.

You've completely skipped the question.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; so we can conclude (if the scripture can lead us to perfection) that Christ is not needed.

Christ is what the scriptures are all about. He sent us The Holy Spirit to help us with them. I'm a little dismayed that you would strip the context off the word "perfect".

Inference is not explicit; if dogma (as said here) requires explicit attestation, re: this matter there can be no dogmatic statement made on the matter.

So these, who were like Thomas, are our greatest example ? This equates
literacy with blessedness. What of those who believe without searching (or can't read) ?

One can be "literate" in scripture without being able to read. Not being able to read is realy no excuse anyway. That can be overcome by learning to read or just having it read to you.

Also, the adjective "noble" does not - in the Greek - refer to their searching. There is a problem in verse 11: ostis is translated as "in that they". In fact, ostis is a pronoun -- yet your translation has it as a preposition and two pronouns. In the KJV, this passage is the only time in the NT that ostis is translated as more than a simple pronoun. This changes the application of the adjective eugenia (well born). Look at the societal rank of those in the later passages -- same social status.

Are you denying that the Bereans were presented as a good example?
What is the point of their being mentioned?
I thought their nobility was in their alert & cautious character, not their social rank.

 

[Thekla]

Christ is what the scriptures are all about. He sent us The Holy Spirit to help us with them. I'm a little dismayed that you would strip the context off the word "perfect".

Not at all; I am trying to start from the beginning -- and deal with the quotation on the face of it. But can one become 'perfect' in Christ without the scriptures ?

One can be "literate" in scripture without being able to read. Not being able to read is realy no excuse anyway. That can be overcome by learning to read or just having it read to you.

Understood - searching for evidence is fine; but "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe". Some believe without "forensic examination".

Are you denying that the Bereans were presented as a good example?
What is the point of their being mentioned?
I thought their nobility was in their alert & cautious character, not their social rank.

They are certainly not the rabble rousers of the previous passages with whom they are compared. And in this, their disposition (eagerly received the Good news) is superior. The following passages describe yet others of a higher social status -- the Gospel is for all, rich and poor, slave and free.

The translation you referred to certainly does shift the emphasis of "noble" to their reading/searching rather than to the group and their disposition. The translation - as I have pointed out - is inaccurate.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; Not at all; I am trying to start from the beginning -- and deal with the quotation on the face of it. But can one become 'perfect' in Christ without the scriptures ?

The verse is explaining one can become perfect in the sense of being ready for good works, not that the scriptures alone make one perfectly saved.
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Understood - searching for evidence is fine; but "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe". But some believe without "forensic examination".

We are not asking for evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are simply looking for any evidence at all, - not that people believed the rumor, but that the rumor was a referenced fact.

They are certainly not the rabble rousers of the previous passages with whom they are compared. And in this, their disposition (eagerly received the Good news) is superior. The following passages describe yet others of a higher social status -- the Gospel is for all, rich and poor, slave and free.

The translation you referred to certainly does shift the emphasis of "noble" to their reading/searching rather to the group. But the translation - as I have pointed out - is inaccurate.

I'm saying that even without the questionable adjective, their searching the scriptures to verify what they were hearing is presented as a good example, regardless of how good (noble) it may or may not be.

Also, the adjective "noble" does not - in the Greek - refer to their searching. There is a problem in verse 11: ostis is translated as "in that they". In fact, ostis is a pronoun -- yet your translation has it as a preposition and two pronouns. In the KJV, this passage is the only time in the NT that ostis is translated as more than a simple pronoun. This changes the application of the adjective eugenia (well born). Look at the societal rank of those in the later passages -- same social status.

You didn't explain clearly what the correct meaning is. If "noble" doesn't refer to their diligence, are you saying their social status was of the nobility? I thought you were saying they weren't of the nobility. Which is it?
I don't even see a social ranking in later passages. Verse 12 says "honorable", but that sounds like character, not social rank, considering the source.

 

[Thekla]

The verse is explaining one can become perfect in the sense of being ready for good works, not that the scriptures alone make one perfectly saved.
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The verse you cite here is preceded by one referencing everything he has been taught. The scripture (here, the OT) is recommended. But this is not exhaustive, and is included in a "bundle" (teaching, imitation of teacher, scripture). The latter reference (OT) does indicate a value for the OT law.

We are not asking for evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are simply looking for any evidence at all, - not that people believed the rumor, but that the rumor was a referenced fact.

I have repeatedly asked for evidence of the accuracy of the NT writings.
I have also asked for evidence that the teachings of The DaVinci Code (to add: and its ilk) are not true.

I'm saying that even without the questionable adjective, their searching the scriptures to verify what they were hearing is presented as a good example, regardless of how good (noble) it may or may not be.

The translation implies a 'sola scriptura' teaching; its just not there.

You didn't explain clearly what the correct meaning is. If "noble" doesn't refer to their diligence, are you saying their social status was of the nobility? I thought you were saying they weren't of the nobility. Which is it?
I don't even see a social ranking in later passages. Verse 12 says "honorable", but that sounds like character, not social rank, considering the source.

The placement of the adjective refers to their status. I'll need to check the Greek for the later passages.

 

[Thekla]

Hi, Rick -

just checked -- the word translated as 'honorable' is 'prwtos', which indicates rank.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's the point

God can't be proven. He can't be qualified. He can't be quantified.

But God can be substantiated using authorities which the RCC accepts from noncatholics, ie, God's Scriptures.

Now, what substantiation does the RCC have from an authority the RCC accepts from noncatholics that indicates to the level of dogma that Mary Had No Sex Ever? You won't accept unsubstantiated, biased, noncontemporary history from us (and you shouldn't!), you don't accept our Church Fathers (and you shouldn't!), you don't accept our Denomination's Traditions (and you shouldn't!), you don't accept that it's true because we say it is (and you shouldn't!) - so OBVIOUSLY don't ask us to do what we have been shown shouldn't be used.

I guess that leaves Scripture (because you do allow us to use that as authoritative and normative) - but we've seen that there is NOTHING that says ANYTHING at all about Mary's intensively private and entirely moot sex life after Jesus was born, so nothin' there. And it leaves confirmable, objective, unbiased, contemporary history (to a MUCH lower level of authority) but nothing has been shown that anyone so much as mentioned this rumor, much less authenticated it as an historical fact and nothing the RCC itself would regard as unbiased or objective. So, nothin' there (so far , anyway - maybe you have something up your sleave that you've been waiting to reveal).

Therefore, we seem to have a amazingly moot DOGMA about an intensively private, extremely personal, very intimate and potentially offensive, hurtful, painful and embarrassing rumor with zero substantiation (only that the ones spreading it say its true). And the official position of the Catholic Church that spreading a rumor is a SIN against that person and therefore is UNLOVING toward them (the issue of this thread).

Faith can't be qualified or quantified

This from a Catholic, a member of the Denomination that has - for many centuries - held that people are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach: right here, right now (not just by God or on judgment day). The Denomination that has a very long history of inquasisions, proclaimations of heresy and anathemas, even dispatching souls to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke NOT because they were sincere in their faith BUT because they could not substantiate their view. Friend, you can't have it both ways. It is most ironic for a CATHOLIC (of all people!!!!!!!) to shout: "It's true if I myself have faith that it is - respect and honor that!" What an amazing double standard coming from a Catholic (of all people)!!!!

You are asking for "prove" of faith

No, I never have.

I've asked for the substantiation that the Catholic Church requires must exist before a story can be told. Otherwise, it's a SIN to spread it, and sinning against someone hardly seems like LOVING them to me....


IF you want to take the position that this dogma is rather a matter of pure faith and pious opinion, you'll find little debate with me (but you will be a heretic in your denomination), you'll find I'm VERY embracing of faith. In fact, you'll find that I'll respect your "heart of faith" TO THE EXACT SAME DEGREE as you do so for the "heart of faith" for Protestants, Mormons, etc. I'll respect the RCC's "heart of faith" EXACTLY as it does mine, Brigham Youngs, etc. But the issue of this thread is NOT whether people tend to beleive that a rumor is true and thus have faith in it, the issue is: IS IT LOVING to spread the rumor? Again, I direct you to the official position of the Catholic Church on that point: It is a SIN and thus UNLOVING to spread a story if it's unsubstantiation and thus a rumor - our faith or belief in it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Someone may believe that Senators Obama and Clinton have sex daily, their "heart of faith" may be sincere and I guess we can respect that, but I think the RCC's Catechism would state that it is a SIN to spread this story about these people without substantiation. So, my good and respected friend, the issue isn't faith, the issue is substantiation. (And I would add: appropriateness; I agree with our Catholic friend WarriorAngel - there is the issue of whether spreading this particular rumor is distinctively LOVING).





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Philothei]

And for over 150 pages, all we've gotten is "the ones spreading the rumor say it's true." Odd, because the RCC doesn't accept this apologetic from anyone else (it has dispatched some to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for one saying something without adequate substantiation to support the view).

I've NOT required that the dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER be substantiated by Scripture Alone or even by Mary and/or Joseph (the only two people that would know if it's true). I've ONLY asked for substantiation of a level required of a dogma and of a nature that the RCC itself accepts from others. So far, for 150 pages, we've just received apologetics that the RCC itself condemns, rejects and ridicules so it's probably appropriate for non Catholics to do the same?



Let us NOT FORGET:

1. The issue of this thread is: Is the dogmatic spreading of this extremely intimate, personal and moot story about Mary's sex practices distinctively LOVING?

2. There is only one dogma from 2 or 3 denominations on this issue, and the "burden of proof" - the necessity of substantiate - is entirely theirs.

3. The RCC officially insists that to spread a story that is unsubstantiated is a SIN.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

The davinci code is a gnostic didaskalia about Christ ... being married... Can you prove it wrong using the Bible?

 

[lionroar0]

God can be proven. Tee hee. It takes a mighty creator to create what we have around us.. It is difinitly detailed even in the smallest of things.. To have faith is know what you have faith in.. Can this that you have faith in be proven? For faith comes how? By hearing and doing the word of God. Faith is not blind.. Someone may come and tell you the moon is made of green cheese.. So just because it was said does not make it so unless it comes from the mouth of God. For there is only one truth..

Thank your for proving my point. In your above post. You neither provided a quantity of God nor a quality.

Neither did you provide a quality nor a quantity of faith.

God and faith remain unproven.


Peace

 

[Philothei]

The davinci code is a gnostic didaskalia about Christ ... being married... Can you prove it wrong using the Bible?

Anyone wants to answer? I would be curious to know how it can be supported since the EO would not have a probelm with such claim due to the Tradition already that deals with the issue.... but... how others could claim it since the Bible is obviously moot to this issue?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Anyone wants to answer? I would be curious to know how it can be supported since the EO would not have a probelm with such claim due to the Tradition already that deals with the issue.... but... how others could claim it since the Bible is obviously moot to this issue?

Greetings. My motto is and always will be, do not go pass what is written. If it isn't written in the Bible, then as far as I myself am concerned, it is rumour and conjecture.

That is why I am and will always remain SOLO SCRIPTURA. Thoughts? [yes I know that is anathema to the RCs and Orthodox]

1 Corinthians 4:6 These things yet brothers! I transfer into myself and Apollos because of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above which-things has been written, to think the no one over the one ye may be being puffed up against the different-one/other.