Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
Really?
Mary is assumed.
They have no support for this one either.
It sure does seem that Rome has spent a lot of time, effort, energy and money on propping up Mary.
A google search of: catholic church mary gets 48,000,000 hits.
A google search of: catholic church Jesus gets 38,400,000
A google search of: catholic church Peter gets 40,000,000 hits; Paul gets 54,600,000
A google search of: catholic church assumption gets 8,390,000 hists.
A google search of: catholic church mary saves gets 16,800,000 hits.
A google search of: catholic church Jesus saves gets 260,000; change that to Jesus is Savior gets 1,240,000; change that to Jesus is Lord gets 16,000,000.
Sure sounds like some misplaced priorities there.
Typical prot, can’t provide facts, so go the Alinsky way.
That would help, but strawmen are so much easier to knock down.
What I find interesting is that they create what they want Prots to believe SS is instead of listening to us about what we really believe it to be even though they've been told time and again.
Again with the names.
I give verifiable google searches and all you can do is cast dispersions. Very telling.
If you can't show support for your religion's beliefs that is not my problem. It sure seems when catholicism's teachings are brought to the light of day and measured against the Word, they wilt under the scruitiny.
Christianity can however support what it teaches in the Word.
Recently the Bible has come under attack by liberal scholars who claim that the New Testament canon was determined by the winners of a supposed struggle for dominance in the early centuries of Christianity. As the following evidence reveals, however, the canon is not arbitrary or authoritarian, but divinely authoritative. First, the entire New Testament canon was recorded early and thus was not subject to legendary contamination. Had any part of the canon been composed after AD 70 it would most certainly have mentioned the destruction of the very temple that had given the ancient Jews their theological and sociological identity. Additionally, because Matthew and Luke likely used Mark as a source and Luke composed his gospel prior to the writing of Acts, which was completed prior to Pauls martyrdom in the mid60s, Mark may have been composed as early as the AD 40s, just a few years after the events recorded. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reiterates a Christian creed that can be traced to within three to eight years of Christs crucifixion. By contrast, the Gnostic gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, are dated long after the close of the first century. The entire New Testament canon was recorded early and thus was not subject to contamination. . . .The authority of the New Testament is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of its authors. . . .And extrabiblical evidence confirms the New Testament canon.
Furthermore, the authority of the New Testament is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of its authors. John writes, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touchedthis we proclaim concerning the Word of life (1 John 1:1). Likewise, Peter reminded his readers that the disciples did not follow cleverly invented stories but were eyewitnesses of [Jesus] majesty (2 Peter 1:16). Moreover, the New Testament contains embarrassing details that no authoritarian association bent on dogmatic dominance would have adopted. For instance, the Gospels present the founding members of the movement as dissident disciples who not only doubted but denied their Master. The canon was not determined by men but discovered by the community of early believers based on principles of canonicity.
Finally, extrabiblical evidence confirms the New Testament canon and knows nothing of early competing canons. Secular historiansincluding Josephus (before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus (around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius (AD 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (AD 110)confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Romeall writing before AD 250also shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. From such sources, we can piece together the highlights of the life of Christ independent of the New Testament canon. Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the centrality of the canonical Gospels and recorded their widespread use in important Christian centers including Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. As such, the canon was not determined by men but discovered by the community of early believers based on principles of canonicity.
Luke 1:12 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Source compliments of Dr. Gary...thanks.
Show us why the Scripture that the Holy Spirit inspired is not adequate, that God did not do a good enough job the first time around.
What do we need to know for salvation and maturity in Christ that is NOT found in Scripture?
That said, if he badgers you with the same question over-and-over that is making the thread "about" you and is "making it personal."
. Rome does NOT say that, in the least.
You, uh, might want to check out the catechism. It differs with your understanding.
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
bogus claim that the rcc as we know it today has been around for 2000 years.
funny, the NT never mentions the papacy, indulgences, burning incense, cardinals, assumption of mary, her immaculate conception, praying to mary.....I could go on, but you get the idea.
The early Christian church does not resemble the rcc.
You are here again guilty (right down to the bone) of what you are accusing others of.
You first posted the demand "document or retract" addressed to comment #296 with yourself having highlighted;
and yourself remarking in reply to that portion;
Guess what? The assertion which you said was 'hogwash' was established to be true in comment #377. Rome says that only itself, which itself regards as "The Church™, can interpret Scripture. Well, duh, that's not exactly news around here, is it? Yet you had said to RnMomof7, having mentioned that factual info (as for what the RCC claims as it's own prerogative) that it was "hogwash".
Elsie later added (for good measure?), if I understood him well enough, as he was engaging in a bit of play on words in regards to the Assumption of Mary, as a thing which is assumed, rather than is in any way documented factually, such as eye witness account, etc.
In fact, for many centuries it was acknowledged within the Church that the precise details of her death were not known, including if she was bodily "assumed" into heaven, or not.
Shall I ping (by which I mean bring citation from) Epiphanius?
There is really no need, as the RCC otherwise admits that there is no actual proof (no documented "fact" as it were) of such a thing as the Assumption of Mary having occurred.
Should we be forced to bring evidence (from RCC sources) for admission of that?
What then, if someone here were to do so?
Would YOU begin to retract your own comments?
Time and again those are proven wrong -- but there is rarely any acknowledgement forthcoming --- yet you demand retractions from others?
How small can you be?
Go back and retract the "hogwash" comment, and while you are at it (to save everyone a lot of time and trouble) just go ahead and admit there is no real and actual evidence for 'Mary' having been bodily Assumed into heaven.
Do you have enough integrity to do so --- you know -- to do as you demand others to do?
If so -- when will we here on FR begin to see much in the way of visible traces for it?
I doubt a one time question can be construed as “badgering”. On the other hand questioning me about wearing a ring over 8 times would seem to fit.
When you are being asked the same question over and again on the same thread, send me a Freepmail with the links so we can follow-through.
Catholics wouldn't want us to go against what scripture says would they? So could you show where the apostles wrote down what they said was the "tradition" they talked about? Surely if they said not to go beyond what was written they would have provided written proof of what they calle "tradition" right?
In CONTEXT this was demonstrated to be false (prots won't admit it due to low reading comprehension, but it is still false). If you read from I believe it is paragraph 80 -94 (or 98 I don't have my CCC here in front of me)You will see that it is referring to defining dogma.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
I asked you three times in replies to your badgering of another Freeper.
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.