Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Show that paracletos means representative.
(2)Show that apostolos doesn't.
“BUT if Mary was assumed into heaven that would have been a miracle of such magnitude that it would have encouraged all those being persecuted for the name of Christ.”
Around these parts, we call that an argument from silence. You are arguing that because Scripture doesn’t mention it that it didn’t happen.
“The first mention of the assumption was not until the 6 th century:”
Wrong. Juvenal, then Bishop and later Patriarch of Jerusalem, brought the evidence forth at the Council of Chalcedon. He stated that Mary had passed on in front of all the Church and was buried and that three days later, they returned and found that her tomb was empty, and there were no remains of her.
They took her shroud that she had been wrapped in to the council for display. Chalcedon was in the mid 5th century. This is the earliest evidence that we at present possess. There is evidence that this was known long before in Jerusalem, and that her tomb, which is located near the mount of Olives, dates back even earlier. The crypt has been preserved by the Church all the way to today, despite the fact that the church built near to it has been destroyed several times.
“none of those directly taught by the apostles or those that immediately following mentioned anything on this ‘miracle’ “.
That we currently possess, no. But we do not possess any Gospels that date back to the early church at present either. It is unreasonable to expect that if the Gospels were not preserved, that we would possess evidence of the assumption of Mary dating back to the early church.
But you seem to have moved the conversation over to who is the proper REPRESENTATIVE of the head, which is a different thing from charging the Pope with thinking he is the head. It's one thing if I think I'm Bill Gates. It's quite another if I think I'm his proper representative -- even if I'm wrong.
Are you dropping the charge that the Pope claims to be head (in any but a representative sense) and substituting the charge that he falsely represents the head? Only a bad argument needs obscurity. A good one welcomes clarity.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Christ is head of the church, He sends the Holy Spirit which is pretty much one and the same unless you think the three in one is really three separate.
If someone asks for evidence of a claim I make, what am I supposed to do then, if not provide links?
What hypocrisy. Extra-biblical clues and sources are OK when they are used to connect the dots to solve Protestant doctrinal difficulties but not when they solve Catholic ones. Doctrinal issues are not the only issues you guys have.
The early church identified the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5,1:8,2:4,2:38) and Christians continue to use Paraclete as a title for the Spirit of God. In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5 v. 4 Jesus Christ uses the verb παρακληθήσονται, paraclethesontai, traditionally interpreted to signify "to be refreshed, encouraged, or comforted". The text may also be translated as vocative as well as the traditional nominative.[ The Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha Bible Translation] Then the meaning of 'paraclethesontai', also informative of the meaning of the name, or noun Paraclete, implicates 'are going to summon' or 'will be breaking off'... The Paraclete may thus mean 'the summoner' or 'the one, who, or that which makes free'[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=paraklhqh%2Fsontai&la=greek&prior=au%29toi\&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155:book=Matthew:chapter=5&i=1]
In 1 John 2:1 "Paraclete" is used to describe the intercessory role of Jesus Christ who pleads to The Father on our behalf. And in John 14:16 Jesus says "another Paraclete" will come to help his disciples, implying Jesus is the first and primary Paraclete. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Paracletos]
Apostolos: a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders. [http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=652]
Would you say that all believers are told to be a messenger or one sent forth to spread the gospel?
Werent’ all the books of the New Testament written by those who Christ personally chose? Then didn’t He tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit who would bring all to their remembrance. And do they not all agree with each other. Then the references to Old Testament works and do they not all agree with all the other 66 books? Seems good start to me.
Find the bodily assumption of Mary in scripture and perhaps we can agree.
But that’s not sola scriptura. That’s tradition. See, this isn’t an argument between sola scriptura and tradition, but rather an argument between Tradition and tradition.
You are relying on the tradition as established by Luther, while I, and the other Catholics here are relying on the tradition as established by the magisterium in the late 4th century. The Canon was established as we see in the Vulgate including books like Maccabess et al.
You would ask us to throw away that canon as handed down then, in favour of a much later canon as established by Luther.
Prior to the establishment of the Canon, yes, not all the books that we have today were considered to be Canon. Including Hebrews which is a problem for your definition as authorship is unknown. In the end, what counts is not whether we consider the work to be inspired, but rather, what the Church has decided.
Oh bull! Nice try but that dog ain’t gonna hunt. I refer to the original Apostles and you rely on 4th century and try to play the length of time game? Give me a break.
>> You would ask us to throw away that canon as handed down then, in favour of a much later canon as established by Luther.<<
I know Catholics are rather stuck on the Catholic canon meme but again, that dog don’t hunt. The Apostles came before the RCC.
Where are the Gospels of the Apostles Thomas, Philip and Judas in your Bible and why are books not authored by Apostles included?
“I refer to the original Apostles.”
Then why is it that the first time that the list of books that you regard as your canon appeared with Luther?
Did the original Apostles give the Church a canon? Did they give them a bible that they could use as we have now?
Anything in them we don’t already have?
Because the RCC had been lying to people for so long?
BTW How about that scriptural proof for the bodily assumption of Mary?
There are even contradictions within Catholic traditions themselvs, it would seem.
So you admit then that there is no evidence to support your claim that the Apostles used Luther’s canon?
So the Church fathers are falliable but Luther is infalliable? Strange claim to be staking your tent.
If you must provide links to answer a question, ping me so I know that you are aware of the guidelines and then I will follow-up and make sure the argument doesn’t follow from the previous thread.
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.