- It may not be your position, but it is the position of millions of people.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2013 9:10:43 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 10/11/2013 9:11:50 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
It is not a straw man. It may not be your position, but it is the position of millions of people.
Yes. Because we know that the tombs and relics of martyrs and other saints were treasured and venerated by the early Christians. The TOTAL absence of any tradition regarding a tomb of Mary, or any relics of Mary IS powerful evidence.
Pius XII carefully did not define whether or not Mary died. He spoke of her having completed the course of her life on earth. The Eastern churches lean toward her having died, while in the West the overwhelming opinion is that she did not.
The question of whether Mary died is open. Opinions have always differed.
Even if she did not die, this in no way logically implies that she is “superior” to Jesus. She is a creature. No Catholic believes Mary is anything other than a creature.
The straw house that composes that portion of Romanism is about the only topic of conversation around here...
The two statements are in conflict only if you misread the statement about Mary.
It doesn’t say that ONLY MARY can lead you to God...
It says that Mary CAN ONLY lead you to God...
>> Now, I already got to the issue in post #82 above. But it was as if I didn't say that in your rush to make an illegitimate attempt at "gotcha."<<
No, you didn’t. I never made a claim that whatever the “preacher says” is a “quote from scripture” so your question was irrelevant to the discussion.
>> The reality of the matter is, "Reformed" pastors do the same thing with Scripture in their prayer and worship.<<
Show where they have ever made the claim that “it’s a quote from scripture”.
“It may not be your position, but it is the position of millions of people.”
Well, then it should be easy for you to name some of them, and maybe link us to a statement from some denominations expressing this belief. Could you do that please, in order to back up your claim?
You have not answered my question.
Show me the Scripture that teaches that ONLY Scripture contains revelation about Christ (and other truths relating to Christ).
You might also answer this: Would it be reasonable for the Jewish faith, which had a priesthood, and liturgy, and sacraments, to be “fulfilled” by a religion without any priesthood, liturgy, or sacraments? Why would God spend 3000 years forming his people through liturgy and sacraments, and then abruptly switch to a religion totally dependent on the written word, and NOTHING ELSE. Especially at a time when the dissemination of writings was fantastically expensive, and would remain so for 1500 years?
Try googling “a woman clothed with the Sun.”
Uh, I don’t need to google it. That is Israel. not Mary.
>> In other words, belief in the bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven dates all the way back to the Apostles<<
I asked you to show where in scripture that apostles taught. Or are you going to show that the apostles taught that in some other way?
>> If it is true that all religious knowledge must be in Scripture, then Scripture must teach that proposition.<<
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.<<
Obviously Paul taught that we should “check the scripture” to see if what is taught is truth. Can you show somewhere that they said to check something else? Do I need to post all the times Jesus said “it is written”?
But Jesus says that he is the only way to God; how then can Mary lead one to God?
“Whether Mary is there or not I don’t know and the only part of the Bible I wonder about is Revelation, where it talks about her.”
Revelation doesn’t really say anything, plainly at least, about Mary. There is a passage referring to “the woman” that Catholics interpret to be about Mary, but there is no actual reference to her by name. The linkage of Mary to that prophetic figure is a point of contention among those who interpret Revelation.
Unfortunately, by equating tradition with Scripture, the Roman Church will find Jesus saying the same words to it as He did to those who held to Jewish tradition and placed it above Scripture: “Why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” and, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:3,9) and, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13).
Revelation doesn’t say ANYTHING about Mary, plainly or not. Genesis 37:9-11 makes it clear who the sun, moon, and 12 stars symbolize.
“Or are you going to show that the apostles taught that in some other way?”
If he can, I’d like to see that. The best I’ve seen is third-hand accounts from several centuries after the time of the apostles.
I tend to agree with you, but I was trying to be charitable.
No. Nothing has ever been “infallibly” defined without determining that it has been believed “always and everywhere” by the Church. That does not mean ABSOLUTELY “always and everywhere,” or there would be no need for a definition. An example would be the Resurrection. That HAS been believed absolutely “always and everywhere.
There have been two infallible definitions of dogma regarding Mary, her Immaculate Conception, and her Assumption. This was done only after ascertaining that there was evidence that both dogmas had been believed from apostolic times in practically all places.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.