Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So why do you accept and reference a text supported as authentic largely by rumor ?

1. If you mean Scripture (and I don't recall referencing such in this thread), all parties in the discussion accept the authority of God and His Scriptures.
2. Scripture is not me, myself and I alone. It is an authority OUTSIDE and ABOVE all of us.
3. Since the RCC and EO reject the nature of the substantiation being offered by themselves alone, why should they ask others to accept it? As I noted, being a really nice guy and desiring to make things MUCH easier for the RCC than it does for Protestants, I will accept the level and nature of substantiation that it accepts from others for dogmas. I'm actually allowing the RCC to establish the level and nature required to substantiate a dogma. But so far, in some 160 pages of posts, all we've gotten is: "Those that are spreading the rumor believe it's true," "The Bible does not explicity and obviously contradict it," "Some of our Denomination's Fathers who had no way at all of knowing the information believed it." Of course, the RCC rejects all of those arguments and none of them have anything to do with substantiation - obviously.

It could be said that Senators Obama and Clinton have a "love child."
Perhaps the rumor is started and can be documented as started close to the supposed birth and within the lifetimes of both senators - which would make it many times more historically credible than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that cannot be documented as having existed within the lifetime of Mary (or for centuries after that). Now, let's say that ALL those spreading the rumor about this love child believe it is true!!! That might be millions of people - many multiples of the number who believed t he rumor that Mary had no sex ever for centuries. Now, do you regard it as LOVING to spread this story about Clinton and Obama? Is it DOGMA because it was spread and believed early to the supposed birth and within the lifetime of both senators (giving it much stronger support than Mary having had no sex) and because the Bible does not explicity say that it's wrong? Is it a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty because ALL those spreading the rumor believe it is? AND (the point of this thread): IS IT DISTINCTIVELY LOVING for all to spread this report of this "love child" to all 6.5 billion people of all ages, genders, races and nationalities as a matter of highest importance for them to know and they are heretics (and their salvation now in question) if they don't accept it as dogma?


Let's say that there is a large group of girls spreading a rumor that your 13 year old daughter is pregnant. Already, we have a stronger rumor than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary becuase the rumor can be shown to have existed within the lifetime of the people involved. Anyway, the girls spreading the rumor all insist that it's true. And, of course, it's not contrary to Scripture since your daughter isn't even mentioned there (about anything). The girls spreading this all think this is a matter of highest importance for all to know - spreading it at school, over the internet, calling and texting everyone they know about this story of GREAT importance about your daughter. It's just THE MOST IMPORTANT thing for all to know, and it's about your daughter's sex life. So, would you counsel your daughter that she should be flattered and honored, for this is a matter of supreme LOVE toward her (the issue of this thread)? Would you thank, defend, support and join with the girls in spreading this story about your daughter? Just curious....





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

1. If you mean Scripture (and I don't recall referencing such in this thread), all parties in the discussion accept the authority of God and His Scriptures.
2. Scripture is not me, myself and I alone. It is an authority OUTSIDE and ABOVE all of us.
3. Since the RCC and EO reject the nature of the substantiation being offered by themselves alone, why should they ask others to accept it? As I noted, being a really nice guy and desiring to make things MUCH easier for the RCC than it does for Protestants, I will accept the level and nature of substantiation that it accepts from others for dogmas. I'm actually allowing the RCC to establish the level and nature required to substantiate a dogma. But so far, in some 160 pages of posts, all we've gotten is: "Those that are spreading the rumor believe it's true," "The Bible does not explicity and obviously contradict it," "Some of our Denomination's Fathers who had no way at all of knowing the information believed it." Of course, the RCC rejects all of those arguments and none of them have anything to do with substantiation - obviously.




.

Why do you accept the NT as authentic ? It doesn't meet your standards. In fact, its authenticity is established by a "rumor mill". If your problem is with rumors, and establishing factual ground before accepting information, why don't you apply this standard to the authenticity of the NT ?

Of course, as you say, Christians may hold "pious opinions", like the teachings of the DaVinci Code on Christ are true. After all, these teachings cannot be refuted using the text (NT) that came out of the rumor mill.

And then you "make up" a definition of dogma and apply it to others. Is it dogma to you that the NT is authentic ? Or a pious opinion ?

 

[MamaZ]

For our spirit bears witness to His Spirit..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. If you mean Scripture (and I don't recall referencing such in this thread), all parties in the discussion accept the authority of God and His Scriptures.
2. Scripture is not me, myself and I alone. It is an authority OUTSIDE and ABOVE all of us.
3. Since the RCC and EO reject the nature of the substantiation being offered by themselves alone, why should they ask others to accept it? As I noted, being a really nice guy and desiring to make things MUCH easier for the RCC than it does for Protestants, I will accept the level and nature of substantiation that it accepts from others for dogmas. I'm actually allowing the RCC to establish the level and nature required to substantiate a dogma. But so far, in some 160 pages of posts, all we've gotten is: "Those that are spreading the rumor believe it's true," "The Bible does not explicity and obviously contradict it," "Some of our Denomination's Fathers who had no way at all of knowing the information believed it." Of course, the RCC rejects all of those arguments and none of them have anything to do with substantiation - obviously.


It could be said that Senators Obama and Clinton have a "love child."
Perhaps the rumor is started and can be documented as started close to the supposed birth and within the lifetimes of both senators - which would make it many times more historically credible than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that cannot be documented as having existed within the lifetime of Mary (or for centuries after that). Now, let's say that ALL those spreading the rumor about this love child believe it is true!!! That might be millions of people - many multiples of the number who believed t he rumor that Mary had no sex ever for centuries. Now, do you regard it as LOVING to spread this story about Clinton and Obama? Is it DOGMA because it was spread and believed early to the supposed birth and within the lifetime of both senators (giving it much stronger support than Mary having had no sex) and because the Bible does not explicity say that it's wrong? Is it a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty because ALL those spreading the rumor believe it is? AND (the point of this thread): IS IT DISTINCTIVELY LOVING for all to spread this report of this "love child" to all 6.5 billion people of all ages, genders, races and nationalities as a matter of highest importance for them to know and they are heretics (and their salvation now in question) if they don't accept it as dogma?


Let's say that there is a large group of girls spreading a rumor that your 13 year old daughter is pregnant. Already, we have a stronger rumor than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary becuase the rumor can be shown to have existed within the lifetime of the people involved. Anyway, the girls spreading the rumor all insist that it's true. And, of course, it's not contrary to Scripture since your daughter isn't even mentioned there (about anything). The girls spreading this all think this is a matter of highest importance for all to know - spreading it at school, over the internet, calling and texting everyone they know about this story of GREAT importance about your daughter. It's just THE MOST IMPORTANT thing for all to know, and it's about your daughter's sex life. So, would you counsel your daughter that she should be flattered and honored, for this is a matter of supreme LOVE toward her (the issue of this thread)? Would you thank, defend, support and join with the girls in spreading this story about your daughter? Just curious....



.

the NT as authentic? It doesn't meet your standards.

It does. I said I would accept any authority that the RCC and EO accept from others. The RCC and EO both accept the Authority of Scriptures from others. In fact, we all have exactly the same Dogma of Scripture.

Feel free to quote any Scripture that says Mary Had No Sex EVER. All we've seen so far is either
1) Well, the Bible doesn't exactly say she DID have sex!!
2) Well, I can impute my view into the Bible via invisible words no one but I can see.

Perhaps you'd read my post above and especially that in red font.
And respond.





.

 

[Thekla]

It does. I said I would accept any authority that the RCC and EO accept from others. The RCC and EO both accept the Authority of Scriptures from others. In fact, we all have exactly the same Dogma of Scripture.

Feel free to quote any Scripture that says Mary Had No Sex EVER. All we've seen so far is either
1) Well, the Bible doesn't exactly say she DID have sex!!
2) Well, I can impute my view into the Bible via invisible words no one but I can see.

Perhaps you'd read my post above and especially that in red font.
And respond.




.

What do you mean that the EO/OO/RC "accept the authority of scriptures from others" ? Who are these "others" ?

You seem to not understand that we accept scriptures by Tradition.

You seem to conflate dogma and kerygma.

You seem to hold a double standard: one standard for scripture and another standard for anything else from Tradition.

What is the value of citing scripture as evidence when per your standards the bulk of the NT does not meet your standard for authenticity ?

Per our definition, you have kerygma based on texts that can't meet your own standards for authenticity.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What do you mean that the EO/OO/RC "accept the authority of scriptures from others" ? Who are these "others" ?

When the RCC or even the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod quotes Scripture, the EO accepts that Scripture as authoritative and normative. It is an Authority it accepts as fully valid - even if someone other than the EO uses or quotes such, the Rule is accepted

You seem to conflate dogma and kerygma.

In the RCC, it's DOGMA.

You seem to hold a double standard: one standard for scripture and another standard for anything else from Tradition.

You seem to hold a double standard: One for the EO and one for everyone else. I suspect (because of your constant evasion of it) that you hold one for stories about Mary and a very different one for stories about your daughter or yourself.

you have kerygma based on texts that can't meet your own standards for authenticity.

It meets yours AND mine AND every other Christians.
We aren't talking about kerygma, we're talking about a very specific DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
I have no dogma or doctrine or official position or even a fallible, personal opinion about how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) - you constantly seem to get our positions regarding Mary's sex life reversed.



It could be said that Senators Obama and Clinton have a "love child."
Perhaps the rumor is started and can be documented as started close to the supposed birth and within the lifetimes of both senators - which would make it many times more historically credible than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that cannot be documented as having existed within the lifetime of Mary (or for centuries after that). Now, let's say that ALL those spreading the rumor about this love child believe it is true!!! That might be millions of people - many multiples of the number who believed t he rumor that Mary had no sex ever for centuries. Now, do you regard it as LOVING to spread this story about Clinton and Obama? Is it DOGMA because it was spread and believed early to the supposed birth and within the lifetime of both senators (giving it much stronger support than Mary having had no sex) and because the Bible does not explicity say that it's wrong? Is it a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty because ALL those spreading the rumor believe it is? AND (the point of this thread): IS IT DISTINCTIVELY LOVING for all to spread this report of this "love child" to all 6.5 billion people of all ages, genders, races and nationalities as a matter of highest importance for them to know and they are heretics (and their salvation now in question) if they don't accept it as dogma?


Let's say that there is a large group of girls spreading a rumor that your 13 year old daughter is pregnant. Already, we have a stronger rumor than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary becuase the rumor can be shown to have existed within the lifetime of the people involved. Anyway, the girls spreading the rumor all insist that it's true. And, of course, it's not contrary to Scripture since your daughter isn't even mentioned there (about anything). The girls spreading this all think this is a matter of highest importance for all to know - spreading it at school, over the internet, calling and texting everyone they know about this story of GREAT importance about your daughter. It's just THE MOST IMPORTANT thing for all to know, and it's about your daughter's sex life. So, would you counsel your daughter that she should be flattered and honored, for this is a matter of supreme LOVE toward her (the issue of this thread)? Would you thank, defend, support and join with the girls in spreading this story about your daughter?




.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Most scholars don't.


From wikapedia:















.

don't bother. I already showed her this evidence before.

the response was "nuh-uh, it's from AD 60! so there!

 

[Philothei]

It meets yours AND mine AND every other Christians.

how? By poisoning the well?? Your Bible and mine came fromt the same tradition....Then you "doubt" that tradition ..... You are the one who "accept" that tradition that brought forth the very text you read and then you go right back to "poison it " .... by not accepting it... All who belong to the Protestant Churches seem to do that not realizing they are part of that tradtion....Your very statement is the poof......

 

[Thekla]

When the RCC or even the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod quotes Scripture, the EO accepts that Scripture as authoritative and normative. It is an Authority it accepts as fully valid - even if someone other than the EO uses or quotes such, the Rule is accepted

I think you've confused something; we do not accept the NT based on your quoting from it. We accept the authenticity of the NT based on Tradition.

On what do you base your acceptance of the NT as authentic ?





In the RCC, it's DOGMA.

I'm not RC

You seem to hold a double standard: One for the EO and one for everyone else. I suspect (because of your constant evasion of it) that you hold one for stories about Mary and a very different one for stories about your daughter or yourself.

The standard for the EO per the NT and teachings is Tradition.

How was my daughter involved in the Incarnation ?

It meets yours AND mine AND every other Christians.
We aren't talking about kerygma, we're talking about a very specific DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
I have no dogma or doctrine or official position or even a fallible, personal opinion about how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) - you constantly seem to get our positions regarding Mary's sex life reversed.

Please define what you mean by dogma -- I think we have a different definition.

Maybe you can describe some dogmas you hold to.

It could be said that Senators Obama and Clinton have a "love child."
Perhaps the rumor is started and can be documented as started close to the supposed birth and within the lifetimes of both senators - which would make it many times more historically credible than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that cannot be documented as having existed within the lifetime of Mary (or for centuries after that). Now, let's say that ALL those spreading the rumor about this love child believe it is true!!! That might be millions of people - many multiples of the number who believed t he rumor that Mary had no sex ever for centuries. Now, do you regard it as LOVING to spread this story about Clinton and Obama? Is it DOGMA because it was spread and believed early to the supposed birth and within the lifetime of both senators (giving it much stronger support than Mary having had no sex) and because the Bible does not explicity say that it's wrong? Is it a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty because ALL those spreading the rumor believe it is? AND (the point of this thread): IS IT DISTINCTIVELY LOVING for all to spread this report of this "love child" to all 6.5 billion people of all ages, genders, races and nationalities as a matter of highest importance for them to know and they are heretics (and their salvation now in question) if they don't accept it as dogma?


Let's say that there is a large group of girls spreading a rumor that your 13 year old daughter is pregnant. Already, we have a stronger rumor than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary becuase the rumor can be shown to have existed within the lifetime of the people involved. Anyway, the girls spreading the rumor all insist that it's true. And, of course, it's not contrary to Scripture since your daughter isn't even mentioned there (about anything). The girls spreading this all think this is a matter of highest importance for all to know - spreading it at school, over the internet, calling and texting everyone they know about this story of GREAT importance about your daughter. It's just THE MOST IMPORTANT thing for all to know, and it's about your daughter's sex life. So, would you counsel your daughter that she should be flattered and honored, for this is a matter of supreme LOVE toward her (the issue of this thread)? Would you thank, defend, support and join with the girls in spreading this story about your daughter?




.

Given your acceptance of the NT as authentic based on rumors, I wonder why you need to "make up illustrations" to evade the rumors you accept as true: that the NT writings are authentic.

 

[Philothei]

UB Yeah as we do not bother to keep asking where in the Bible it talks about Sola scriptura ....Everyone seems to back off then... I have not seen anyone answering that question either....

 

[Philothei]

It meets yours AND mine AND every other Christians.

So now majority rules? You would not accept majority in the Myriam Ever Virginity belief... .now you do... nice "evidence" here ....

 

[Uphill Battle]

UB Yeah as we do not bother to keep asking where in the Bible it talks about Sola scriptura ....Everyone seems to back off then... I have not seen anyone answering that question either....

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.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Scriptures are accepted as Authoritative by YOU and ME and all other Christians

how? By poisoning the well??

Protestants seldom hold the RCC or EO to the standard that they hold us, but I'm being very generous here: I'm letting the RCC and EO establish both the necessary "bar" for a dogma AND what will be considered valid substantiation. I'm not setting it, I'm completely letting the "other side" do it. Now, the RCC and EO accept Scipture as Authoritative and Normative for all - including others. If I quote Scripture (even as a Lutheran), it still considers it normative and authoritative. You can argue with your denomination whether it should or not regard Scripture as authoritative and normative - another issue for another day, thread and forum and frankly between you and the EO - I simply noted that it does. Therefore (cuz I'm an amazingly nice guy and TRYING to make this as easy as I can for you), since it allows ME to use the words of Scripture as such, I'll let them do so. Nice of me, huh? Now, what do you have? Quote your Scriptures about how often Mary and Joseph had sex (or not) after Jesus was born.



We are discussing a DOGMA - a matter of highest importance and greatest certianty - to understand but deny such is to be a heretic and, as my priest pointed out, "heaven is not populated by heretics." And it's entirely about one point: Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN, she had no sex ever. Now, we all know that this rumor has been around since the 4th century anyway ( maybe earlier) and that those spreading it generally regard it as true (as is generally the case with rumors). But the Catholic Catechism specifically and explicity states that to spread a rumor is a SIN and the companion to the Catechism stresses that stories must be substantiated before we share them. Thus, we have an issue here: should this entirely moot, supremely private, extemely intimate, potentially very hurtful story about Mary be confirmed in some manner that the RCC regards as valid and suffient (say from me or Joseph Smith). Consider the following:

It could be said that Senators Obama and Clinton have a "love child."
Perhaps the rumor is started and can be documented as started close to the supposed birth and within the lifetimes of both senators - which would make it many times more historically credible than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that cannot be documented as having existed within the lifetime of Mary (or for centuries after that). Now, let's say that ALL those spreading the rumor about this love child believe it is true!!! That might be millions of people - many multiples of the number who believed t he rumor that Mary had no sex ever for centuries. Now, do you regard it as LOVING to spread this story about Clinton and Obama? Is it DOGMA because it was spread and believed early to the supposed birth and within the lifetime of both senators (giving it much stronger support than Mary having had no sex) and because the Bible does not explicity say that it's wrong? Is it a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty because ALL those spreading the rumor believe it is? AND IS IT DISTINCTIVELY LOVING for all to spread this report of this "love child" to all 6.5 billion people of all ages, genders, races and nationalities as a matter of highest importance for them to know and they are heretics (and their salvation now in question) if they don't accept it as dogma?


Let's say that there is a large group of girls spreading a rumor that your 13 year old daughter is pregnant. Already, we have a stronger rumor than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary becuase the rumor can be shown to have existed within the lifetime of the people involved. Anyway, the girls spreading the rumor all insist that it's true. And, of course, it's not contrary to Scripture since your daughter isn't even mentioned there (about anything). The girls spreading this all think this is a matter of highest importance for all to know - spreading it at school, over the internet, calling and texting everyone they know about this story of GREAT importance about your daughter. It's just THE MOST IMPORTANT thing for all to know, and it's about your daughter's sex life. So, would you counsel your daughter that she should be flattered and honored, for this is a matter of supreme LOVE toward her (the issue of this thread)? Would you thank, defend, support and join with the girls in spreading this story about your daughter?






.

 

[Philothei]

YOu did not answer my post and you poison the well further...

 

[Philothei]

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

believing in a "method" is dogma since it sets standards... just like councils do for the EO then how come you insist...
1. we have no dogma
2. we are not poising the well
Did anywhere in the bible talks about "methods" ? What method has to do with Christ? and the BIble....nothing.

 

[Uphill Battle]

it isn't "beliving in a method." It's using a method. It is not a dogma.

and I don't even understand what you are trying to say with the rest of your post.

 

[Uphill Battle]

it isn't "beliving in a method." It's using a method. It is not a dogma.

and I don't even understand what you are trying to say with the rest of your post.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

YOu did not answer my post

I did. I will accept you using the words of Scripture as Authoritative and Normative because you regard this as valid when others (including me) use it. I'm letting YOU establish was is and isn't Authoritative for our discussion just to make it simple for you and not get into issues of authority (inappropriate for this forum). YOU allow me to use the words of Scripture as authoritative and normative, thus I do you. THAT is my answer. No, it's not "poising the well" it's being nice, meeting you entirely on your side of the fense, and hoping to make some progress on this issue of:
1) WHY is it a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER - to that to deny such makes one a heretic and "heaven is not populated by heretics."
2) Since it is a SIN to spread a story that is unsubstantiated, what is the substantiation for this moot, private, personal, intimate rumor about Mary's sex life - substantiation to the level of dogma and that the RCC and/or EO itself regards as valid and suffient from others (because if you reject it, why should we accept it)?


I LOVE Our Blessed Lady, more than my own mother. I adore, revere, esteem and in a sense worship Her. What is said about her MATTERS to me, and I think should to others and I know does to her and Her Son. I want to know WHY this specific particular aspect of Her is soooooooooooooo important for all to need to know (and they are a heretic if they deny it) and I want to know how you know that is dogmatically true. Because it's my Mother you are talking about, and I love her. We aren't talking aobut how many angels fit on the head of a pin. We aren't talking about if alchemy or Aristotle were dogmatically correct. We're talking about the sex life of my Mother.



Consider the following: It could be said that Senators Obama and Clinton have a "love child." Perhaps the rumor is started and can be documented as started close to the supposed birth and within the lifetimes of both senators - which would make it many times more historically credible than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that cannot be documented as having existed within the lifetime of Mary (or for centuries after that). Now, let's say that ALL those spreading the rumor about this love child believe it is true!!! That might be millions of people - many multiples of the number who believed t he rumor that Mary had no sex ever for centuries. Now, do you regard it as LOVING to spread this story about Clinton and Obama? Is it DOGMA because it was spread and believed early to the supposed birth and within the lifetime of both senators (giving it much stronger support than Mary having had no sex) and because the Bible does not explicity say that it's wrong? Is it a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty because ALL those spreading the rumor believe it is? AND IS IT DISTINCTIVELY LOVING for all to spread this report of this "love child" to all 6.5 billion people of all ages, genders, races and nationalities as a matter of highest importance for them to know and they are heretics (and their salvation now in question) if they don't accept it as dogma?


Let's say that there is a large group of girls spreading a rumor that your 13 year old daughter is pregnant. Already, we have a stronger rumor than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary becuase the rumor can be shown to have existed within the lifetime of the people involved. Anyway, the girls spreading the rumor all insist that it's true. And, of course, it's not contrary to Scripture since your daughter isn't even mentioned there (about anything). The girls spreading this all think this is a matter of highest importance for all to know - spreading it at school, over the internet, calling and texting everyone they know about this story of GREAT importance about your daughter. It's just THE MOST IMPORTANT thing for all to know, and it's about your daughter's sex life. So, would you counsel your daughter that she should be flattered and honored, for this is a matter of supreme LOVE toward her (the issue of this thread)? Would you thank, defend, support and join with the girls in spreading this story about your daughter?




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

believing in a "method" is dogma since it sets standards... just like councils do for the EO then how come you insist...
1. we have no dogma
2. we are not poising the well
Did anywhere in the bible talks about "methods" ? What method has to do with Christ? and the BIble....nothing.

Not all Christians agree. Some of us think that truth matters. I don't agree that any method for determine that is just as good as any other, that a person can listen to the nice Mormon boys, flip a coin, and if it comes up "heads" they join the Mormon Church. Ironcially, you point to a method (Councils) and then say that methods don't count. I suppose for a nihlist or relativist, where truth is moot or non-exist or whatever you regard it to be - well, methods don't have anything to do with Christ or anything else for that matter. Believe WHATEVER you want. HOWEVER you want. And proclaim others heretics that disagree with you.





.

 

[Thekla]

Not all Christians agree. Some of us think that truth matters. I don't agree that any method for determine that is just as good as any other, that a person can listen to the nice Mormon boys, flip a coin, and if it comes up "heads" they join the Mormon Church. Ironcially, you point to a method (Councils) and then say that methods don't count. I suppose for a nihlist or relativist, where truth is moot or non-exist or whatever you regard it to be - well, methods don't have anything to do with Christ or anything else for that matter. Believe WHATEVER you want. HOWEVER you want. And proclaim others heretics that disagree with you.





.

Incorrect; the method was comparison with Tradition. The teachings of Arius, etc, were supported using the Bible. The error of his interpretation was revealed by comparing his interpretation of scripture to Tradition.