ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Cruciform]

Wooo! Now you've got me walking on eggshells. Don't know what I'd do, were it not for these "discussions" with a cult unregenerate, who doesn't know the first thing about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Well, you take care now. God bless.

"IGNORE"

Moving on... :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

Wooo! Now you've got me walking on eggshells. Don't know what I'd do, were it not for these "discussions" with a cult unregenerate, who doesn't know the first thing about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Well if he ignores ALL of the people who RIGHTLY divide the word of truth on this thread, it will accomplish a lot and save space and time.

 

[Cruciform]

Epiphanius did not believe that the Assumption of Mary was a teaching which had been passed down from the Apostles. Here are his own words... Can't you do better than this?

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world." ~ Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).​

Also, see Post #352 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Let us look at Rome's answer to what they teach about Mary here:

"As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race."​

Already answered.

Here is what is said about Mary on this subject in one of the articles you provided at post#338:

"Through faith and Baptism, we become God’s children by adoption and participate in the divine life. As new creations in Christ, we cooperate in His redemptive work. While this is true of all Christians, it is most perfectly true of Mary, who was never wounded or enslaved by sin and therefore was perfectly free to give herself completely to Christ."​

You provided no evidence that we cooperated in the Lord's redemptive work or that Mary did.

Already answered.

Redemption is only by blood so to say that Mary cooperated in the Lord's redemptive is not true.

The Redemption that Christ accomplished on the cross must also be applied to individual souls in the present day. Jesus alone accomplished the former, and he permits human beings to participate in the latter.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

No it's from the Bible, by thinking scholars and people like me, NOT by sycophants like yourself.

Already answered.

No, that is a link to an RCC site that simply eisegetes scripture from the RCC POV.

No more than you merely eisegete Scripture on this forum according to the opinions you've derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

YOU did not answer a thing in this thread so far.

That you happen not to prefer (like) the answer does not mean that no answer was provided. Try again.

Not at all, but as you are so inculcated into the RCC dogmas you wouldn't know a Biblical truth if it came up and bit you in the butt.

Back at you: You are so inculcated into your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect that you wouldn't know a Biblical truth if it came up and bit you in the butt. Try again.

No it makes fallacious assertions, while claiming that's what the scripture it cites says, when in actually it doesn't and I've refuted a couple but I can't be bothered dealing with every one of them, which I'm sure is the reason you post these links, to inundate people so they get sick of your style, which is all this is...style over substance.
Again: You have been utterly unable to offer any substantive answer whatsoever to the content of the cited source. Try again.

I'm posting yes, NOT parroting...

In fact, everything you post here merely parrots the opinions that you have learned from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. You have offered no real thoughts of your own---nor can you.

Simply childish without the ability to reason or think for yourself.

Answered just above.

Being called on what exactly?

Try to follow. Trying to apply an "argument" to your opponent that applies equally to your own position is an informal logical fallacy, one that you have engaged in here on several occasions. Again, if you don't like being called on your error, I'd suggest not engaging in it in the first place.

Every post I make in response to your fallacious assertions, is based on MY knowledge...

That is, the assumptions and opinions that you have learned from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, and which you merely parrot in every anti-Catholic post.

Of course denial is a prerequisite for pushing the dogma of the CC.

Once more, you merely place your vast ignorance of the Catholic faith on public display. At least you're consistent.

That's right, and as I actually quote scripture WITH exegesis...

"...eisegesis based upon the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect," you mean.

Well if you did you wouldn't be citing CC sites with bad interpretations and pure eisegesis...

There's your glaring fallacy again, trying to apply a claim to me that applies equally well to your own position. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

It is not Mary who is the Queen of Heaven.

Try again.

 

[Cruciform]

Well if he ignores ALL of the people who RIGHTLY divide the word of truth on this thread...

I'll let you know if I actually encounter one.

 

[StanJ]

I'll let you know if I actually encounter one.

Why would I need you to show me something you can't possibly know?

 

[StanJ]

No more than you merely eisegete Scripture on this forum according to the opinions you've derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

You have already been refuted.

That you happen not to prefer (like) the answer does not mean that no answer was provided. Try again.

You have already been refuted.

Back at you: You are so inculcated into your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect that you wouldn't know a Biblical truth if it came up and bit you in the butt.

You have already been refuted.

Again: You have been utterly unable to offer any substantive answer whatsoever to the content of the cited source. Try again.

You have already been refuted.

In fact, everything you post here merely parrots the opinions that you have learned from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. You have offered no real thoughts of your own---nor can you.

You have already been refuted.

Try to follow. Trying to apply an "argument" to your opponent that applies equally to your own position is an informal logical fallacy, one that you have engaged in here on several occasions. Again, if you don't like being called on your error, I'd suggest not engaging in it in the first place.

You have already been refuted.

That is, the assumptions and opinions that you have learned from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, and which you merely parrot in every anti-Catholic post.

You have already been refuted.

Once more, you merely place your vast ignorance of the Catholic faith on public display. At least you're consistent.

You have already been refuted.

"...eisegesis based upon the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect," you mean.

You have already been refuted.

There's your glaring fallacy again, trying to apply a claim to me that applies equally well to your own position. Try again.

You have already been refuted

 

[StanJ]

Try again.

He doesn't need to, he's right.

 

[Cruciform]

You have already been refuted.

Now show everyone here that you actually comprehend the meaning of the term "refute," and cite the precise post number in which you supposedly "refute" my position.

(Wait for it...)

 

[Cruciform]

Why would I need you to show me something you can't possibly know?

Nope, haven't encountered one yet...

(Perhaps I'll humor Stan for one more post.)

 

[Cruciform]

He doesn't need to, he's right.

Post your proof.

 

[StanJ]

As I have said all I can to this deceived RC, who obviously has NO relationship with a personal God, but only with an institution that preaches anti-Christ behaviour, he is now on my ignore list.

 

[Kdall]

Nope, haven't encountered one yet...

(Perhaps I'll humor Stan for one more post.)

Keep going for both of us. He put me on ignore for asking tough questions on an evolution thread

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To my knowledge, the first bishop to write about Mary's Assumption---at least, the first whose writings we still have---was Epiphanius of Salamis, a Catholic bishop writing in 377 A.D.

"As far as we know, no Christian author before Epiphanius had ever raised the question of the end of the Blessed Virgin's earthly existence. He was the first who tried to bring together the data from a tradition that, along the course of the centuries, had absorbed many different ideas" (L. Gambero, Mary & the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [Ignatius Press, 1999], p.125).​

Epiphanius did not believe that the Assumption of Mary was a teaching which had been passed down from the Apostles. Here are his own words:

"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ " (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).​

Anyone who will use his brain will know that Ephiphanius did not even hint that he believed in the Assumption of Mary. After all, he wrote that no one knows Mary's end.

But you cite Ephiphanius as the first Catholic who spoke of Mary actually being assumed up to heaven bodily.

 

[Cruciform]

As I have said all I can to this deceived RC, who obviously has NO relationship with a personal God, but only with an institution that preaches anti-Christ behaviour, he is now on my ignore list.

And there it is, just as I thought (see Post #371). So much for Stan's supposed "refutation" of my position. He has exactly nothing, and he knows it. He's an utter waste of time; "ignore" works just fine for me.

Moving on to far more intelligent and intellectually honest posters (that's the goal, anyway).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

Belief in the traditions of the Church is simply belief in a works salvation for which there is no biblical precedence.

 

[Cruciform]

Epiphanius did not believe that the Assumption of Mary was a teaching which had been passed down from the Apostles... But you cite Ephiphanius as the first Catholic who spoke of Mary actually being assumed up to heaven bodily.

As my quotation from Gambero's book (Post #352) indicated, Epiphanius was the first Christian scholar to "raise the question of the end of the Blessed Virgin's earthly existence." It simply wasn't an issue before that time. The quotation I cited (Post #363) shows Epiphanius suggesting that Mary had never died, neither naturally nor as a martyr, thus at least hinting at her bodily assumption into heaven. And from Epiphanius forward, the doctrine of Mary's Assumption became ever more detailed and explicit.

For example, for a more explicit reference, one could turn to St. Gregory of Tours (b. 540), who wrote the following:

"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." (Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4).​

Many others could be cited as well.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Belief in the Tradition of the Church is simply belief in a works salvation for which there is no biblical precedence.

Post your proof.