Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

It's using a method.

UB if you "use" something it means you believe it to be true ...to guide you to the truth... that pressuposes "belief" that it is right... That pricinple since it is ..... you have to start from something... and that belief was never present before the 16th century it poped up when the Reformation wanted to do away from the RC church... we all know... HOW that "dogma" came about ...
SS is found nowhere in the Bible the one who you claim poof is not there... and you need to go outside to search for it... but you cannot since you have a 500 years of tradition... and that tradition you have ....unfortuanetely you also poison your well by denying it... As it is also obivious any interpretation you give to the Bible to be man's interpretation .... also, thus disproving the very "dogma" of SS you set forth...

Does this notion make any sense to any? I think not.

 

[Uphill Battle]

UB if you "use" something it means you believe it to be true ...to guide you to the truth... that pressuposes "belief" that it is right... That pricinple since it is ..... you have to start from something... and that belief was never present before the 16th century it poped up when the Reformation wanted to do away from the RC church... we all know... HOW that "dogma" came about ...

It is not the same thing. But you go on insiting it is. It bolsters your pathetic "Sola Scriptura isn't in the bible" argument that's not a remarkably new argument, it's a retread that's been refuted repeatedly. I regret bringing it up, the response is predictabley the same: nuh uh! it is too a dogma! it is too a belief! neener neener!

SS is found nowhere in the Bible the one who you claim poof is not there... and you need to go outside to search for it... but you cannot since you have a 500 years of tradition... and that tradition you have ....unfortuanetely you also poison your well by denying it... As it is also obivious any interpretation you give to the Bible to be man's interpretation .... also, thus disproving the very "dogma" of SS you set forth...

see?

Does this notion make any sense to any? I think not.

I'd rather think, than think not, thanks.

 

[Philothei]

CJ you never answered why SS and not EV? they are a both outside the Bible both dogma/method... still beliefs outside of the realm of bible...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ you never answered why SS and not EV? they are a both outside the Bible both dogma/method... still beliefs outside of the realm of bible...

So, you are now of the position that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not affirmed by Scripture?

Sola Scriptura is not "outside the Bible" as a praxis. As I posted, Jesus alone used it some 50 times. Not that praxis NEEDS to be exampled in the Bible (our church uses the common lectionary as a praxis, that's not found anywhere in the Bible). I use the internet (there's not a single verse in the Bible about using the internet). But we have examples of the Rule of Scripture being used from Moses (who embraced the first Scripture) on. Again, read the opening post of the thread I've often linked you to.



Back to the issue before us:

1. Why is this matter of whether Mary had intercourse with Joseph after Jesus was born a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty so that it is dogma and one is a heretic (and their salvation questioned) if they don't accept such as dogma? Why THIS matter of Our Blessed Lady's privacy?

2. Where is the substantiation that the Catholic Church insists is necessary for the spreading of such to not be a sin? Substantiation to the level of dogma and of a nature that the RCC (and perhaps EO) accepts as valid from others?




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

UB if you "use" something it means you believe it to be true ...

I use air conditioning. I dont believe that using A/C is a dogma.
I drive a Toyota. I don't believe that driving a Toyota is dogma and one is a heretic whose salvation is in question if they don't.


Can we get back the issue?

Why is it distinctively LOVING toward Mary to tell all 6.5 billion people that she and Joseph NEVER had intercourse?

SS is found nowhere in the Bible

Praxis need not be TAUGHT in Scripture. I drive a Toyota and yet there is not a single word in Scripture about driving or Toyotas. But the Rule of Scripture IS exampled in the Bible - many times. But that's a discussion for another day, thread and forum.


Let's address the issue of this thread: Why is it distinctively LOVING toward Mary to tell all 6.5 billion people that she and Joseph NEVER had intercourse? Would YOU regard it as distinctively LOVING if I told all 6.5 billion people that you and your spouse have sex on average 1.66 times per week and this is a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and one's salvation is thus in question? If so, why? If not, why? And if you think my doing this is moot, offensive and (well, none of my business) then you are ever so close to getting my point.





.

 

[lionroar0]

I've answered it on umpteen threads, umpteen times.

Sola Scriptura is a method. It is nothing more. It is a way to base beliefs on what is accepted as truth from one end of Christianity to the other. That the scriptures are true. It is not a dogma. It is not a must believe. It is a method by which we do not just believe any old thing that comes down the pipe.

really, if we don't find some method, you're subject to believe anyone who says anything.

A method has to stand on something.

When one uses a method one takes information and systematically accepts some of it and rejects some of it. When compared to something else.

In this case it seems that information is being compared to the Scriptures and then some is being accepted and some is being discarded.

To use the Scriptures as a means of comparison. One has to accept the Scriptures as true.

One also has to interpreted the Scriptures. Interpreting is a cognitive function that uses what one has been taught.

What is the basis of accepting the Scriptures as true?

How does one know what one has been taught is right or true?


From our POV we accept the Scriptures as true, because it's part of Tradition.

We know that something is true, because it is compared to Tradition.




Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

From our POV we accept the Scriptures as true, because it's part of Tradition.

We know that something is true, because it is compared to Tradition.

What if tradition had it wrong?

 

[lionroar0]

What if tradition had it wrong?

Then the Scriptures are wrong.

Along with everything else.

Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

That's just wrong.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Then the Scriptures are wrong.

Along with everything else.

Peace

That is of course your own Denomination's opinion.

 

[katherine2001]

That's just wrong.

No, it is not wrong. There was no NT canon agreed on by the Church until at least the 4th Century. The Church decided which books were part of the NT by Tradition--what had been handed down by the Apostles. If Tradition is wrong, then you can't trust the NT.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, it is not wrong. There was no NT canon agreed on by the Church until at least the 4th Century. The Church decided which books were part of the NT by Tradition--what had been handed down by the Apostles. If Tradition is wrong, then you can't trust the NT.

No they didn't. The early Christians decided which books were Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And now that we are finally able to read them ouselves with the Holy Spirit, what need is there for your Pope and the Vatican now to interpret them. Thoughts.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263824
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

 

[Photini]

No they didn't. The early Christians decided which books were Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And now that we are finally able to read them ouselves with the Holy Spirit, what need is there for your Pope and the Vatican now to interpret them. Thoughts.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263824
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

She's not RC. There was never a ban (that I know of) against the laity reading Scripture in the OC.

 

[lionroar0]

That is of course your own Denomination's opinion.

Umm no. This would be historical fact.

Tradition is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and handed to the whole Church.

If that's wrong, then the Scriptures and eveyrthing else is wrong.

Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Umm no. This would be historical fact.

Tradition is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and handed to the whole Church.

If that's wrong, then the Scriptures and eveyrthing else is wrong.

Peace

Well, that is why I will disagree with your Denomination's traditions and facts.
Btw, what was the early RCC's view on the Harlot in Revelation?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

Luke 19:41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments on Her, 42 saying, "That if thou-knew, and thou, even indeed in the day, this, the toward Peace of thee, now yet it was Hid from thy eyes. 43 That shall be arriving days upon thee, and thy enemies shall be casting up a siege-work to thee, and shall be encompassing thee, and pressing thee every which place. [Jeremiah 52:4]

Reve 18:9 and shall be lamenting and shall be wailing over Her the kings of the land, the ones with her fornicating and indulging, whenever they may be observing the smoke of the fireing of Her

 

[Rick Otto]

Nah, just your definitions.

But your still one of my best buds.
Next round is on me.
BTW, do something about doofus, would ya? (lol)

 

[Rick Otto]

No, it is not wrong. There was no NT canon agreed on by the Church until at least the 4th Century. The Church decided which books were part of the NT by Tradition--what had been handed down by the Apostles. If Tradition is wrong, then you can't trust the NT.

I can trust truth.

 

[lionroar0]

No they didn't. The early Christians decided which books were Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And now that we are finally able to read them ouselves with the Holy Spirit, what need is there for your Pope and the Vatican now to interpret them. Thoughts.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263824
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

I think the problem here is a lack of communication. When people see the word "Church." It is automatically assumed that the laity had nothing to do with it but it was a decision made by the clergy seperate from the laity.

As in lording over them.

Which is not what that means.

Most of the early Christian did not know how to read. They really did hear the gospel. This is how they knew what was wrong and right. The one's that knew how to read and had education were the one's that became the clergy. The Church also had several regional councils to decide what was Scripture and what wasn't. The last of these councils was the council of Carthage.

The whole Church took part in this over a period of about 300yrs.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Well, that is why I will disagree with your Denomination's traditions and facts.
Btw, what was the early RCC's view on the Harlot in Revelation?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

Luke 19:41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments on Her, 42 saying, "That if thou-knew, and thou, even indeed in the day, this, the toward Peace of thee, now yet it was Hid from thy eyes. 43 That shall be arriving days upon thee, and thy enemies shall be casting up a siege-work to thee, and shall be encompassing thee, and pressing thee every which place. [Jeremiah 52:4]

Reve 18:9 and shall be lamenting and shall be wailing over Her the kings of the land, the ones with her fornicating and indulging, whenever they may be observing the smoke of the fireing of Her

Your not just disagreeing with the CC but Christian history as a whole. As the CC is not the only one that holds this view.

Before the gospel was written down it was spoken.

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

Tradition is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and handed to the whole Church.

Actually truth is what Jesus taught aside from tradtion