[CynicalBear]

>>All right. Now, you need to cover at least two more things:<<

No, I don't.

>>Prove, from Scripture alone, that "the Gospel preached by St. Paul" is completely contained within the 66-book Protestant Bible, and never exceeds it.<<

I need to do no such thing. If someone claims he taught something more then is written in scripture they need to prove that with documentation.

>>Prove that the Catholic Church exceeds the Gospel as preached by St. Paul (and he preached both in writing and orally--see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.).<<

The assumption of Mary. Catholics need to prove that he or the other apostles taught it and the requirement to believe it. If they propose he taught it orally let's see the documented proof.

>>Your argument assumes both of these points... so you'll need to prove them, in order to get any traction.<<

Nonsense. Paul said that those who taught something they didn't was to be considered accursed. If the Catholic Church can't prove the apostles taught something like the assumptions I will consider them accursed. It's that simple.

>>Er... and that "documentation" would need to be in the 66-book Protestant Bible, right? What other "documentation" would you take as authoritative?<<

Show your documented proof that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.

>>Forgive me for volleying your comment back at you, but: philosophies which claim that the Catholic Church has ever "created truth" of any sort, or that She has license to do so, could certainly be called imbecilic.<<

Then prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. It's the Catholic Church that created that so called "truth".

>>All right: I now know your opinion. Now, please prove it true, using Scripture alone.<<

Matthew 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου* οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Only building an assembly of those called out of the world to God in there. Nothing about building an organized hierarchy such as the Catholic Church. The closest Greek word to "church" is kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" and it's not in that verse or any other verse that apostles addressed their letters to.

>>How do you decide who "knows His voice" (as opposed to a counterfeit)?<<

I have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

>>"Never be lost by the Father" is not what the Scripture says. Look again.<<

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

>>The only way this could possibly make sense is if you think we (as Christians) have no free will at all!<<

If you don't believe that all sin originates with the influence of Satan there isn't much I can say.

As for the rest of your post I will simply repeat. If anyone understood the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and His influence they wouldn't be plagued by fear of "falling away".

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
All right. Now, you need to cover at least two more things:

[CynicalBear]
No, I don't.

Let me rephrase: if you want to be taken seriously, you'll supply the logically-necessary articles which I referenced for you. If you don't, then... well and good; bloviate away. It's not my choice; logic requires that sound conclusions have clear definitions, true premises, and a conclusion which follows from the premises. You haven't come close, yet.

[paladinan]
Prove, from Scripture alone, that "the Gospel preached by St. Paul" is completely contained within the 66-book Protestant Bible, and never exceeds it.

[CynicalBear]
I need to do no such thing. If someone claims he taught something more then is written in scripture they need to prove that with documentation.

FRiend, I didn't put the idea of "sola Scriptura" in your mouth; you (and others on this board) use it as a standard for measuring everything... and it is not only unproven, but unprovable! It also logically precedes any claims about things being "Scriptural", since only "sola Scriptura" gives the "green light" to dismissing any spiritual truths not explicitly found in Scripture (and, in this case, in the 66-book Protestant Bible). Don't shift the responsibility of proof. Your claim came before mine; so... own it, or drop it. Prove sola Scriptura, or drop the standard.

[paladinan]
Prove that the Catholic Church exceeds the Gospel as preached by St. Paul (and he preached both in writing and orally--see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.).

The assumption of Mary. Catholics need to prove that he or the other apostles taught it and the requirement to believe it. If they propose he taught it orally let's see the documented proof.

First, you'll need to make up your mind: are you requiring that ST. PAUL taught it (as you say in the last sentence), or are you allowing that ANY of the Apostles believed/taught it?

Second, let me ask you again: what "documented proof" would possibly convince you, outside of the 66-book Protestant Bible? What's to keep you from dismissing it as "unbiblical", on that spurious basis?

Paul said that those who taught something they didn't was to be considered accursed. If the Catholic Church can't prove the apostles taught something like the assumptions I will consider them accursed. It's that simple.

You're welcome to consider any personal opinion you like; it's simply that you'll need to prove sola Scriptura (i.e. prove that Divine Revelation was limited to the 66-book Protestant Bible alone, and that anything which non-Catholics don't see in that Bible fragment must [somehow] necessarily be "other than what the Apostles taught"), lest I (and others) simply take your statement as raw opinion, and nothing more.

[paladinan]
Er... and that "documentation" would need to be in the 66-book Protestant Bible, right? What other "documentation" would you take as authoritative?

[CynicalBear]
Show your documented proof that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.

I'll dig up what I can find. But: don't you have an answer to my question? Or are you choosing not to answer, for some reason, simply to have me do all the work? I'd rather not do lots of leg-work simply to have you dismiss it out of hand for some spurious "it's not in the Bible!" reason. I do have other things to do with my time, trust me.

Tell you what: as a gesture of good faith, would you be so kind as to tell me (while I'm searching) whether you'll accept any "proof" outside of your version of the Bible, at all?

Matthew 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου* οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Very good! (Nice coding!) Now, show how this supports your case.

Only building an assembly of those called out of the world to God in there. Nothing about building an organized hierarchy such as the Catholic Church. The closest Greek word to "church" is kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" and it's not in that verse or any other verse that apostles addressed their letters to.

It's odd, but... I don't see this "explanation" of yours anywhere in Scripture! Can you supply chapter/verse? (Note to your point: I don't see anything about use of television, 501c(3) donations to religious groups, or anything else indicative of modern development in Scripture, either. You'll need to prove that the Scriptures forbid it, I'm afraid.)

[paladinan]
How do you decide who "knows His voice" (as opposed to a counterfeit)?

[CynicalBear]
I have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

Mm-hmm. So claims every charlatan who's ever sold snake oil. It's obviously possible for those who claim to be Christian to be misled (you've said as much about Catholics, IIRC), and they can claim the "guarantee of the Holy Spirit" at least as reliably as you can (and they may say that you're misinterpreting Scripture woefully... since the Holy Spirit told them so, and they can pull "proof texts" and Biblical scholars and lexicons out to prove their case, as well as you can prove yours). So... you've pushed the problem back one step: how do you know that you're hearing the Holy Spirit, and not merely what you want to hear? And how do you prove that by the 66-book Protestant Bible alone?

[paladinan]
"Never be lost by the Father" is not what the Scripture says. Look again.

[CynicalBear]
John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

I can still argue the semantics and wording of that, but... all right; for the sake of the discussion, I'll give you that one. Now: can you define the set of "all people given Christ by the Father", and also the set of "all things willed by the Father"? I ask the latter question, because there are at least two types of "Will of God": His "positive", or "perfect" Will (which can never be thwarted), and His "permissive" Will (which He allows to be thwarted, to preserve our freedom). God never positively "wills" that we sin (or else He would not forbid it), and God never positively wills that anyone be damned (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4)... but He obviously ALLOWS people to be damned. So... which type of Will is being described, here? And how do you prove your answer using the 66-book Protestant Bible alone?

[paladinan]
The only way this could possibly make sense is if you think we (as Christians) have no free will at all!

[CynicalBear]
If you don't believe that all sin originates with the influence of Satan there isn't much I can say.

FRiend, if you dodge a clear question in order to substitute a red herring ("influence" vs. "snatched"), then there's not much *I* can say, either. Your whole state point was to refute the idea that we can "jump" out of God's Hand and be lost; citing "influence" really doesn't help your case; this perfectly fits the idea which I was proposing: that Satan influences/tempts us to "jump out" of the Hand of God, and be lost.

As for the rest of your post I will simply repeat. If anyone understood the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and His influence they wouldn't be plagued by fear of "falling away".

Fair enough: that's your personal opinion (albeit unproven and vacuous). And I'll repeat myself, as well:

Given a choice between "St. Paul is talking nonsense (and the Holy Spirit included nonsense in the Scriptures)" vs. "CynicalBear is mistaken", I'll choose the latter (no offense).

[paladinan]

I don't have much time, but here's a reference to one of the earlier teachings on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, by St. John of Damascus (revered by both East and West, alike).

Note, mainly, the absolute LACK of outcry against what many Protestants would call "a heretical innovation" (or worse). I don't think it's stretching things to say that, if you (or metmom, or others of like mind) were a Christian writer of prominence at the time of St. John of Damascus, you would have screamed your objections and denunciations from the rooftops. Am I wrong?

And yet... crickets. No calls for "the heretic to be reined in", no Church councils to condemn his propositions with anathemas, no horror-driven schisms of "Bible Christians" fleeing the Church in droves.

And why? Because--I submit--St. John was teaching something already known and accepted from of old. It wasn't an innovation at all; it was a clear statement of what was always true, and always (at least in some parts) known to be true.

Beyond that, you might check out the references from the actual Papal Document which defined (i.e. clarified, beyond all doubt) the dogma, once and for all. Sorry not to parse it more, for you... but, as mentioned, I'm short on time. Ask questions as you like... though I will say: the more civil and non-inflammatory your replies, the more likely I'll consider all this work worthwhile.