Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Cronos
"I find your 2 statements to be an admission that DOGMA is the "Traditions of Men" that were condemned by Jesus concerning the Pharisees..."

Well, that's a flawed individual interpretation (sola interpretura).

Hmmm...and everything you posted to deny what I said is also flawed individual interpretations. All the writers you mentioned, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, Irenaeus, R.C. Sproul, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria and Luther all produced individual interpretations of what was written in the Scriptures. They got some things right, IMHO, but in other things they were so far out in left field that they wandered out of the ballpark.

As John Hardon S.J. wrotein his book "pocket Catholic Dictionary":
Traidiotn first means all of divine revelation , from the dawn of human history to the end of hte apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by The Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God's revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture".

The first statement by Harden I can basically agree with. But the bold emphasized statement is flawed seriously - can he, or you, or for that matter, anyone prove any one of the many supposed "sacred traditions" actually were "part of God's revealed word that were not contained in the sacred Scriptures"? I venture to say that you absolutely cannot do so!

The Holy SPirit authored and collected the bible but he used men , the Church to write it and to collect it and to close canon.

Again, the emphasized words above are wrong - no specific man or small group of men in a meeting are the "ekklesia", period; the "ekklesia" included ALL members. Yes, I know you will take this and run in circles with it :-) And it will not prove anything. Besides, this has nothing to do with what I said about the IC of Mary - maybe it would have been better to address what I said instead of running out of the ballpark.

Even your assertion against Mary is incorrect when you consider the term the angel used for mary -- full of grace. The greek word signifies FILLED with grace, overflowing with the grace of God. God created this woman and filled her with grace so that God Himself could be born inside Her. As we know with the Ark, only the purified, holy priests could even touch it -- what more for someone holding God? Mary, the God bearer, Theotokos.

Okay, you now address some of what I said, but it is full of philosophical individual interpretations of a single word in what is a simple statement concerning Mary. It would do you well if you brought up the use of that same word as it was applied to others mentioned in the Scriptures. If you apply that term, with those philosophical meanderings of men minds, to those who are also said to be "full" of the grace of God, well, did that then mean that they too were IC'd? What a method of twisting the Scriptures to produce a Dogma on!

639 posted on 03/19/2010 10:16:49 AM PDT by Ken4TA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies ]


To: Ken4TA
All the writers you mentioned, the Didache

Ha -- you've never read or heard of the Didache, have you?
654 posted on 03/19/2010 8:29:13 PM PDT by Cronos (St. Ambrose -- elected by popular acclaim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies ]

To: Ken4TA
and everything you posted to deny what I said is also flawed individual interpretations..... They got some things right, IMHO, but in other things they were so far out in left field that they wandered out of the ballpark.

And yet these are not individual interpretations -- this is what the community of Christians has believed since the apostles. Do you honestly believe that your individual interpretation is better than that of the 1st century Christians who lived and knew the apostles? Or the generation after that?
655 posted on 03/19/2010 8:31:02 PM PDT by Cronos (St. Ambrose -- elected by popular acclaim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies ]

To: Ken4TA
The first statement by Harden I can basically agree with. But the bold emphasized statement is flawed seriously - can he, or you, or for that matter, anyone prove any one of the many supposed "sacred traditions" actually were "part of God's revealed word that were not contained in the sacred Scriptures"?

Yes, these traditions are what birthed the Bible -- these sacred traditions were canon before the Bible was compiled. These sacred traditions are subject to scripture in the same way Mary is subject to Jesus Christ her God -- scripture and tradition do not contradict each other.
656 posted on 03/19/2010 8:32:30 PM PDT by Cronos (St. Ambrose -- elected by popular acclaim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies ]

To: Ken4TA
It's hardly individual -- as I pointed out in the links, even the 1st and 2nd century Christians held Mary in high esteem as filled with Grace, a creature made exceptionally (but still a creature) -- right down to the tradition about Anne and Joachim which stretches back to those times.

1500 or 2000 years later, you seek to contradict those who heard the apostles?
657 posted on 03/19/2010 8:34:26 PM PDT by Cronos (St. Ambrose -- elected by popular acclaim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson