[Repent and Believe]

RB:
The verse definitely doesn’t disallow the possibility that the Church’s claims re. Mary are valid, does it?!

ealgeone:

If it cannot be defended it is defeated.

RP Reply:

Now you are twisting TRUTH. And that is a very RED flag.

For the argument is about a verse and a word, upon which the doctrine of Mary’s supremacy argument itself doesn’t depend, although you would love for it to depend alone upon a single word in a sole verse of scripture. Your side of the argument CANNOT depend on Genesis 3:15, because the verse doesn’t defeat the doctrine and supports the doctrine even if it doesn’t itself define it.

This is typical case of Protestant pastor lawyer-speak where the speaker is slick and fools most, but with an illogical argument.

Which brings to mind:

What reply do you have to post 137 where your ineffective defence of the Protestant claim that “all truth and doctrine can be found only in the Holy Scriptures” was soundly defeated?

[ealgeone]

What reply do you have to post 137 where your ineffective defence of the Protestant claim that “all truth and doctrine can be found only in the Holy Scriptures” was soundly defeated?

Soundly defeated?? LOL!

See my post 148.

[ealgeone]

For the argument is about a verse and a word, upon which the doctrine of Mary’s supremacy argument itself doesn’t depend, although you would love for it to depend alone upon a single word in a sole verse of scripture. Your side of the argument CANNOT depend on Genesis 3:15, because the verse doesn’t defeat the doctrine and supports the doctrine even if it doesn’t itself define it.

This is typical case of Protestant pastor lawyer-speak where the speaker is slick and fools most, but with an illogical argument.

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056

You're right...Genesis 3:15 nor any other verse in the Bible can be used to prove the dogma. Catholicism's own encyclopedia online proves this.

Yet catholics try to do so vainly.

Which again goes back to my argument about the OAs and "apostolic tradition".

If you read the rest of the article on the immaculate conception the observant reader comes to the conclusion that this dogma is based on a lot "it seems" and "it has to be" type arguments.

In other words, the catholic sees something in the texts that isn't there as admitted by the catholic encyclopedia online.

The appeal to tradition is called into question as previously noted and noted in this article.

So it comes down to what the catholic wants to see in the texts and the writings of some of the ECFs.

The practice of reading into the texts something that isn't there is called eisegesis: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

Most Biblical scholars attempt to avoid this means of interpretation. Why?

It leads to very, very bad theology.

The case of how the RCC has built up Mary is a prime example of this.

[Elsie]

Now you are twisting TRUTH. And that is a very RED flag.

Call no man father