Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
That’s typical. I commend you on your restraint and courtesy.
When Jesus ascended into heaven ..1/2 way up a space ship picked him up and took Him to Mars.. I know this because scripture does not tell me otherwise..
Wait. Not Kolob?
Luke 3:23-38. Notice verse 31 in particular.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3&version=ESV
It differs from the genealogy in Matthew in Matthew 1:1-16
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=ESV
You may argue that Scripture tells you all you need to know but you cannot postulate that Scripture tells you all there is to know.
"
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." - John 21:25
In practical terms, it's a distinction without difference.
Doctrines of men would include claiming something that goes in the belly means something.
Where does Catholicism teach such things are bad in and of themselves?
And He was very clear that He was the head of that church and not some guy in Rome.
If you deny an appointed authority, aren't you denying the authority that did the appointing?
My doctrines are strictly found in scripture...
Where's the one on trinitarian theology?
One of the doctrines of the RCC wasnt codified until the 1950s.
RCC doctrines are organic, Protestant doctrines are stagnant. That doesn't make stagnant, correct.
Isn’t that what happened to Elijah?
If you can show me where Scipture says that Mary died I’ll be happy to admit that you are right.
The problem is that you are assuming that what you believe is somehow ‘sola scriptura’, when what you believe isn’t actually found anywhere in the bible.
The bible does not say that Mary died in Jerusalem. It does not say that she was buried in her tomb and rests there still. Now if you can show me actual evidence in favor of your position, I’d be thrilled to see it.
So tell me why I should accept, say, James as ‘inspired’, when you don’t accept Maccabees.
Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:51:43 PM 127 of 359
There is no contradiction with Scripture with the doctrine of her assumption.
Friday, October 28, 2011 6:17:17 PM 43 of 361
Where does scripture say that it is the only authority? Maybe in John Calvin 12:34
Friday, October 28, 2011 6:08:57 PM 41 of 361
Is there anything in scripture to the contrary?
Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:05:05 PM 27 of 506
well, i suppose you can show me from Scripture the teaching of Mary not bodily assumed into heaven.
And He was very clear that He was the head of that church and not some guy in Rome.
Do the word "vicar" mean anything to you? Describing the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church does not in any way impugn Christ's headship, since the Pope's headship is vicarious.
Its also very clear that the doctrines of men include such things as special cups, what not to eat on certain days etc.
Kosher MAY be considered doctrine. Catholic fasting and abstinence are not doctrines but practices. They can change and have changed. So "doctrines of men" does not apply.
I would hope you know the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.
One would have to resort to a priori concepts to do so since the variety of beliefs among those groups from Anglicans to hard-shell Baptists who share at least the profession of sola scriptura makes empirical evidence difficult to sort.
You are hitting on the dilemma that is Protestantism. To be Protestant one must simultaneously embrace and reject the authority of the Church.
At best it claims to possess the authority to selectively cede authority to the Church in the establishment of Canon, and then to rescind that authority with respect to the Deutercanonical books and the ability to exclude them. It cedes the authority to the Church to rightly manage orthodoxy and deal with heresies up and until their own and then rescinds it. It selectively cedes the Church Fathers to expound on Scripture and Tradition until they make a statement at odds with Protestant doctrine and then they point to the flaws in the Fathers.
Notice in Luke 3 the lineage goes back to Nathan. Marys lineage goes back to Davids son Nathan.
Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Then notice in Matthew 1 the lineage goes back to Davids son Solomon.
:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Both Mary and Joseph go back to David each through a different son of David.
Say what?
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sola_scriptura]
You apparently have misread my post.
Mary is not mentioned in either Luke 3 or Matthew 1. The only way to bring Mary into the lineage discussion is to assume that one of the two different men identified as Joesph's father (Jacob in Matthew and Heli in Luke) is actually Mary's father and therefore Joseph's father-in-law.
This poses an insoluble dilemma for Protestants who choose to rely only on Scripture when presented with a question that cannot be answered from "Scripture Alone".
Couldn't see that one coming....
But here, for the skeptics and unbelievers......
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2571185/posts?page=173#173 .
Also post 180, 181.
And this.....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2649950/posts?page=25#25, and also post 62.
And this thread..... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2649950/posts?page=25#25 , and also posts 193, 283, 334, 556, and no doubt more.
And last but not least this very thread itself in post 27, post 55 (yours pt).
At worst, you've been told "Biblical silence is not denial."
Because some people seem to think that that gives them license to make up stuff they want to hear and claim it's *truth* based on *tradition* rather than any solid evidence.
Ping to post 367. I said I’d let you know when it happened again.
No appointing evident. Christ is the only authority.
>>Where's the one on trinitarian theology?<<
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
>> RCC doctrines are organic, Protestant doctrines are stagnant. That doesn't make stagnant, correct.<<
Yeah, thats what we here from Mormons, Muslims, and all those other religions that claim they have information that the Apostles forgot to write down.
Ooh. Cool. More folks to join the party. :)
Anyways, feel free to show me what evidence you have that Mary died in Jerusalem, that she was buried and that she lies there still.
You can take whatever it is you want. I dont tell you what you can and cant accept. If it disagrees with the 66 books I accept I wont.
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.