Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BenKenobi; smvoice; metmom; caww; boatbums
>> “Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.”<<

AKA Hearsay. I asked for proof, not hearsay or stories told over hundreds of years. It took less then 250 years for liberals in this country to claim this country was not founded on Judeo Christian principles.

You have the audacity to call me a liar then give me myth and hearsay as evidence? How preposterous.

>> “The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension.”<<
Ooh. Somehow this was NOT cited. Why?

Because the three to fifteen years was based on “Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. If “nothing certain is known” why would anyone be interested or concerned with the speculation of three to fifteen years afterwards supposition? Good Lord we are not all that stupid.

>> But not this. So clearly it was known at this time. Why?<<

Because the people are another 300 years after even the “maybe could be” in 451. Duh. If you make up a story and it spreads for 300 years it would be expected that in another 300 years it’s pretty well established and even embellished but it’s still just a story built on hearsay.

>> St. Juvenal, which you flat out lied about it not being in your citation.<<

Not one source that leads back to scripture. “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” was something Jesus spoke about.

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

626 posted on 01/06/2012 7:29:28 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear

“I asked for proof”

And when provided proof, you deliberately lied about it. Is lying ok in your book?

Is it ok to lie to people and mislead them?

“not hearsay or stories told over hundreds of years.”

You consider CHALCEDON to be ‘hearsay’? That’s an ecumenical council.

“It took less then 250 years for liberals in this country to claim this country was not founded on Judeo Christian principles.”

So you reject, Nicaea, Chalcedon, Constantinople, etc? Is that the deal?

“You have the audacity to call me a liar”

You are a liar. You said that the source that you cited never referred to Juvenal. Then, when I quote the full text, it proves that you lied.

The only question here is why. Why lie, CB? Isn’t the truth enough for you?

“then give me myth and hearsay”

You consider Chalcedon to be ‘myth and hearsay’? Really? That’s pretty far out.

“Because the three to fifteen years was based on..”

We don’t know the exact year and day of the Death of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We don’t. We just don’t.

Are you saying that because we don’t know this that the Gospel accounts are false?

“why would anyone be interested or concerned with the speculation of three to fifteen years afterwards”

It’s very important, because it shows that her assumption occurred very early on in the Church.

“Good Lord we are not all that stupid.”

So tell me then. What is the exact year and day that Christ died.

“Because the people are another 300 years after even the “maybe could be” in 451.”

And, your point being?

“If you make up a story and it spreads for 300 years it would be expected that in another 300 years it’s pretty well established and even embellished”

Which is why, it says what it did, that these are literary accounts.

Something happened with Mary, the stories spread, and as you said, were embelleshed, etc. We can see this.

Then Juvenal comes in at Chalcedon, and when asked to find her body, shows them the evidence from the Apostles (notice he says Thomas), and the account of her Assumption.

Apparently it was well known at the time in the Church of Jerusalem, but was not known to the Church as a whole. This, is actually rather interesting information, because, as one would expect, that this would have been known and circulated much earlier.

So the question then becomes why didn’t the Church know about this? We don’t have any of the records of the Council of Jerusalem either. That’s a problem for early church history. We know one occurred, we aren’t sure what was discussed. Why? well, the Romans kind of destroyed Jerusalem.

“Not one source that leads back to scripture.”

That’s not what you said. You said there was nothing referring to Juvenal. Why lie, CB?

“teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” was something Jesus spoke about.”

Indeed. Are you calling Juvenal a liar?


630 posted on 01/06/2012 7:44:29 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | 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