Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

---

You are making a claim with NO proof. The Church can demonstrate an unbroken line of 267 popes with dates starting with the 1st Pope Peter.

Sola Scriptura is completely unbiblcal.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

---

I've provided several biblical verses for these. You choose to not accept them. Your anti-Catholic bias is strong here.

I give you this, you have been trained well in this regard. I also appreciate the fact that you have not resulted to ad hominin attacks on the faith and keep the discussion, for the most part, about scripture.

If you'd like, I will send you a book (at my cost) called The Early Church Was the Catholic Church, by Joe Heschmeyer. If you want it and will read it, PM me. If not, no worries. I am happy to send it to someone else. You make not agree with the book, but you will at least understand our historical basis for the Catholic Church.

---

No, the Catholic Church can not claim an unbroken line. We can go into this in more detail later, but briefly, there was no central Church authority in Rome until about 140 A.D. There were dispersed groups of elders and bishops, and no single leader. As I mentioned before, the book of Revelation also indicates there were dispersed group of churches, each with their own leader, but no "Pope".

I can not accept your arguments from scripture regarding the sinlessness of Mary and her perpetual virginity, because they are not scriptural. The perfect passive participle of the verb "graced" does not mean Mary was sinless. This is a logical leap that has no basis. Her being the fulfillment of a typology of the ark of the Covenant is just an eisegesis that has no other scriptural confirmation. That is, unless you are relying on your reach about the tense of a verb. But that would be like begging the question, i.e. arguing in a circle.

I am not "well trained" in being anti-Catholic. I am just a Christian who cares about the truth of the Gospel and about Jesus. I'm also not being anti-Catholic in the sense that I am not against Catholic believers. I consider Catholics fellow believers in Jesus, but who are in grievous error, who are being misled by the authorities they trust, to the point that the gospel they're believing in isn't the true gospel anymore, and thus they are at risk of not being saved. However, I am anti-Catholicism, in that I am against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If I didn't care about Catholics, I wouldn't be spending all this time. If I don't tell you the truth, then THAT is being anti-Catholic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I deny the claim because it is a false claim. And Rawhide specifically pointed out your opinion does not become the rule for what is true or not. So you have spewed yet another false claim.

I don't know what defect is going on with you, that you find it necessary to demonize me with every vile imagination you can spew.

I can only say that you are a Christian in the same manner as Torquemada.

---

I don't understand what you're saying about Rawhide. As far as I know, he hasn't claimed that you did not lie. So how is what he said indicative of me "spewing yet another false claim"? You make no sense at all.

If you don't want to be called out for your hypocrisy, then don't be a hypocrite. It's that simple.

---

Son, the only hypocrite in this matter is you. I've made my share of screw-ups in various times and places, but all the lies here are yours, all the malice and hatred ooozing from posts are yours, and every post that epitomizes hypocrisy in this thread has come from your posts.

You are the one who attacked and attacks brother Christians for not obeying your personal opinion .

You are the one who intimated that not supporting your attacks on other Christians was abandoning Christ.

You are the one who dragged arguments into and from other threads solely to bully and defame.

You have acted shamefully, yet all you can do is double down on it.

God help you son, you have gone full hysterical in this thread and you don't even see it!

---

Once again, your flawed perceptions distort reality:

I did not attack others for not obeying my opinion. Show me where.

I did not say that not supporting my attacks on other Christians was abandoning Christ. I said that YOU were failing Christ by not standing up for the truth, which was that those prayers to Mary were idolatrous and heretical. Instead, you cowered from it so you could look nice.

I did not drag anything out; I merely exposed hypocrisy. You and others decided to drag it out.

I am not acting shamefully, and I am not hysterical. Yet again, you accuse others of that which are guilty of. You have a real problem with self-awareness and logical thought.

More denial from our resident Caiaphas.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

---

You insist on your own definitions of many terms being the only "correct" ones while you continue to rely on an infinite regression. Your type is to Protestants/Evangelicals as the Inquisitors were to Roman Catholicism.

---

I believe my definition was more correct than yours, and I explained my reasoning. If you believe my reasoning is wrong, it would be a much more fruitful discussion if you'd explain why, instead of making rather weak attempts at insults.

---

Ah, "more correct". Lol. You've demonstrated repeatedly the impossibility of having "fruitful discussion" and you show no real interest in bearing fruit. I'm sticking with my label of Pharisee for you. Res ipsa loquitur.

---

Yes, "more correct". I demonstrated that in my post. Your definition was way too broad, which I also demonstrated.

But instead of offering your rebuttal, you've decided to return full circle back to your original ignorant "Pharisee" claim. Of course, that completes my argument, that it in fact was you who were "building faulty arguments off stupid assumptions", not I.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

---

You insist on your own definitions of many terms being the only "correct" ones while you continue to rely on an infinite regression. Your type is to Protestants/Evangelicals as the Inquisitors were to Roman Catholicism.

---

I believe my definition was more correct than yours, and I explained my reasoning. If you believe my reasoning is wrong, it would be a much more fruitful discussion if you'd explain why, instead of making rather weak attempts at insults.

---

Ah, "more correct". Lol. You've demonstrated repeatedly the impossibility of having "fruitful discussion" and you show no real interest in bearing fruit. I'm sticking with my label of Pharisee for you. Res ipsa loquitur.

---

Yes, "more correct". I demonstrated that in my post. Your definition was way too broad, which I also demonstrated.

But instead of offering your rebuttal, you've decided to return full circle back to your original ignorant "Pharisee" claim. Of course, that completes my argument, that it in fact was you who were "building faulty arguments off stupid assumptions", not I.

---

You didn't "demonstrate" squat in your repeated fallacy of proof by assertion. Further, you misrepresented my use of Pharisee in your typical straw man construction. You win the Dunning-Kruger Poster Boy du Jour award. Congrats.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

---

You insist on your own definitions of many terms being the only "correct" ones while you continue to rely on an infinite regression. Your type is to Protestants/Evangelicals as the Inquisitors were to Roman Catholicism.

---

I believe my definition was more correct than yours, and I explained my reasoning. If you believe my reasoning is wrong, it would be a much more fruitful discussion if you'd explain why, instead of making rather weak attempts at insults.

---

Ah, "more correct". Lol. You've demonstrated repeatedly the impossibility of having "fruitful discussion" and you show no real interest in bearing fruit. I'm sticking with my label of Pharisee for you. Res ipsa loquitur.

---

Yes, "more correct". I demonstrated that in my post. Your definition was way too broad, which I also demonstrated.

But instead of offering your rebuttal, you've decided to return full circle back to your original ignorant "Pharisee" claim. Of course, that completes my argument, that it in fact was you who were "building faulty arguments off stupid assumptions", not I.

---

You didn't "demonstrate" squat in your repeated fallacy of proof by assertion. Further, you misrepresented my use of Pharisee in your typical straw man construction. You win the Dunning-Kruger Poster Boy du Jour award. Congrats.

---

It's easier to say I didn't demonstrate squat than actually show that I didn't. This is your preferred mode of rebuttal, along with your usual string of ad hominems.

You literally thought I was being "Pharisee" for believing that Christians should only put their eternal salvation and entrust their soul to God, and no one else. That is what Christianity is. I don't see how you can call this a "strawman", given that in order to be able to argue whether something is anti-Christian or not, like those prayers to Mary, you have to actually understand what Christianity is, and it's clear from your comment that you actually don't. Therefore, it isn't a fallacy at all, it is highly relevant to the debate.

Oldbear83 said:

---

More denial from our resident Caiaphas.

---

If a fellow Christian came to you and said that they entrust their soul and eternal salvation to the hands of Mary, what would you tell them? If they asked you, "Is this wrong? Am I elevating Mary to Jesus?", what would you say?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

---

You insist on your own definitions of many terms being the only "correct" ones while you continue to rely on an infinite regression. Your type is to Protestants/Evangelicals as the Inquisitors were to Roman Catholicism.

---

I believe my definition was more correct than yours, and I explained my reasoning. If you believe my reasoning is wrong, it would be a much more fruitful discussion if you'd explain why, instead of making rather weak attempts at insults.

---

Ah, "more correct". Lol. You've demonstrated repeatedly the impossibility of having "fruitful discussion" and you show no real interest in bearing fruit. I'm sticking with my label of Pharisee for you. Res ipsa loquitur.

---

Yes, "more correct". I demonstrated that in my post. Your definition was way too broad, which I also demonstrated.

But instead of offering your rebuttal, you've decided to return full circle back to your original ignorant "Pharisee" claim. Of course, that completes my argument, that it in fact was you who were "building faulty arguments off stupid assumptions", not I.

---

You didn't "demonstrate" squat in your repeated fallacy of proof by assertion. Further, you misrepresented my use of Pharisee in your typical straw man construction. You win the Dunning-Kruger Poster Boy du Jour award. Congrats.

---

It's easier to say I didn't demonstrate squat than actually show that I didn't. This is your preferred mode of rebuttal, along with your usual string of ad hominems.

You literally thought I was being "Pharisee" for believing that Christians should only put their eternal salvation and entrust their soul to God, and no one else. That is what Christianity is. I don't see how you can call this a "strawman", given that in order to be able to argue whether something is anti-Christian or not, like those prayers to Mary, you have to actually understand what Christianity is, and it's clear from your comment that you actually don't. Therefore, it isn't a fallacy at all, it is highly relevant to the debate.

---

Wrong. You are being a Pharisee in your endless self righteous judgements and juridical pronouncements. The fact that you can't see that tells us all we need to know.

Proverbs 29:22

Oldbear83 said:

---

Proverbs 29:22

---

Also Proverbs 12:16

The Gospels weren't plagiarized. They were written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. 2 were written by Apostles and 2 were written by Associates of Apostles. In Ancient history, it was common not to write anything down for hundreds of years at times. The fact that the Gospels were written within a couple of decades after the events is remarkably fast for back then. The fulfilled prophecies prove the validity of Scripture. Nothing was added to the Bible either. That's false. A thinker will realize that the Bible is true. The Bible doesn't say to send money for Salvation. That's a lie. It's not a swindle. It's factual God's truth and you will be Judged by it.

Catholics and Southern Baptists (AKA Non-denominational) are going at it. The clash of two literal dogmas who claim absolute truth.

Waco1947 said:

---

Catholics and Southern Baptists (AKA Non-denominational) are going at it. The clash of two literal dogmas who claim absolute truth.

---

And Anglicans (who tend to be all over the theological map).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Saying that even though Jesus is constantly referred to as "Lord" and "Savior", and that he is characterized as a personal God, the phrase "personal Savior" is invalid because that exact phrase isn't in the bible, is ridiculous and wholly misses the point. There IS scriptural backing to say that. There ISN'T any scriptural backing to claim Mary is the "Queen of Heaven". You have to infer that fact from an interpretation of Revelation which virtually no early Christian even though about, let alone believed. And then you have to explain why the woman in Revelation had birth pangs, if she is supposed to be a sinless Mary. The way you explain it is by using an ad hoc explanation, saying the pains represent her anguish at her son's crucifixion. Do you see what I mean? No scripture, just ad hoc inference and explanation. If God didn't clearly tell us Mary is "Queen", then He doesn't want you to think that, let alone build a whole system of worship around it.

---

You're dancing on both sides of the street here with your unbiblical belief of Sola Scriptura. You are adding to your bible. No where does the bible say that Jesus is the "Personal Savior." No passage in the bible forbids from giving someone a term of endearment.

If you believe that Jesus is the King of the Universe and Mary is His mother. They are both in heaven now. In the bible the mother of the king is the queen; therefore, it doesn't violent biblical norms to call her the Queen of Heaven. You just don't like it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Just because certain beliefs about Mary have been around a long time, it doesn't mean they aren't false beliefs. Again, this is an argument from tradition fallacy. The bottom line is, beliefs about Mary's sinlessness, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, etc. were not held by the early Christians, nor did they even enter their minds. These were slowly developed over time without any real witness or historical evidence, incorporated as tradition, and later dogmatized, then reinforced using the circular argument of the authority of the Church to decide what is true and what isn't, and using the power of anathematizing anyone who dares to go against it.

---

Once again this is false. I have pointed out several references to those in the early Church that believed these dogmas:

Immaculate Conception - Ascension of Isaiah 70 AD, Odes of Solomon 80 AD, Justin Martyr 155 AD, Irenaeus 189 AD, etc.
Perpetual Virginity - Protoevangelium of James 120 AD, Origen 248 AD, Hilary of Poitiers 354 AD, etc.
Assumption Epiphanius 377, Gregory of Tours 575 AD, Modestus of Jerusalem 634 AD, etc.

These are all considered part of the early Church. The last of the 7 recognized ecumenical councils didn't occur until 787 AD when the Church was still fighting against heresies and defining terms.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Catholics CLEARLY remove the part about bowing to idols in the Ten Commandments in their teaching. That isn't debatable. The numbering issue is not what's relevant here, it's the removing of that part in their teaching. Bowing and kneeling to the cross, which I already explained before, is not idolatry if they consider the cross a symbol of Jesus, and therefore they're really bowing to Jesus. Although, I do believe Christians should not do it, because we shouldn't even make an appearance of idolatry. If, however, they were bowing to the cross because they are attributing special significance and power to that cross, and they are making appeals/prayers to it, then YES, that would be idolatry.

---

You're dancing again. NO where in the bible does it state that one can bow to a cross. At best, you are hypocritical. At worst, you're an idolator.

There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. It is a natural body posture. The commandment is to NOT make or worship something as a God. Protestants have statues and pictures of Jesus in their cars, homes, churches, etc. That would make them in violation of the commandment. Do you or your church put up a nativity set during Advent? That would be considered idolatry according to you.

For the last time on this, Catholic do not believe that statues are gods. Catholics are not worshiping the statues as gods. They are simply honoring a great person that lived a holy life that is not in heaven.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I know of no Protestant that puts wives in the category of property, nor do I know of any Scriptural reference that says to do this.

---

Yes, you actually do. You place your wife in the same category as property in your ten commandments. That's disrespectful.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

Exodus 20:16

Matthew 10:33

Waco1947 said:

---

Catholics and Southern Baptists (AKA Non-denominational) are going at it. The clash of two literal dogmas who claim absolute truth.

---

So join the fray: do you think that a prayer to Mary where one says they "entrust their soul and eternal salvation in her hands" is heretical and idolatrous?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Catholics and Southern Baptists (AKA Non-denominational) are going at it. The clash of two literal dogmas who claim absolute truth.

---

So join the fray: do you think that a prayer to Mary where one says they "entrust their soul and eternal salvation in her hands" is heretical and idolatrous? I do not believe this prayer is heretical and idolatrous but I do not believe it. For Catholics Mary is an important belief in their spiritual journey and upbringing but I am a Protestant so Mary does not have the same implications for my faith.
"There is no necessary correlation between the intensity of emotion one experiences while contemplating a closely held belief and the probability that that belief is accurate." Anon

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Saying that even though Jesus is constantly referred to as "Lord" and "Savior", and that he is characterized as a personal God, the phrase "personal Savior" is invalid because that exact phrase isn't in the bible, is ridiculous and wholly misses the point. There IS scriptural backing to say that. There ISN'T any scriptural backing to claim Mary is the "Queen of Heaven". You have to infer that fact from an interpretation of Revelation which virtually no early Christian even though about, let alone believed. And then you have to explain why the woman in Revelation had birth pangs, if she is supposed to be a sinless Mary. The way you explain it is by using an ad hoc explanation, saying the pains represent her anguish at her son's crucifixion. Do you see what I mean? No scripture, just ad hoc inference and explanation. If God didn't clearly tell us Mary is "Queen", then He doesn't want you to think that, let alone build a whole system of worship around it.

---

You're dancing on both sides of the street here with your unbiblical belief of Sola Scriptura. You are adding to your bible. No where does the bible say that Jesus is the "Personal Savior." No passage in the bible forbids from giving someone a term of endearment.

If you believe that Jesus is the King of the Universe and Mary is His mother. They are both in heaven now. In the bible the mother of the king is the queen; therefore, it doesn't violent biblical norms to call her the Queen of Heaven. You just don't like it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Just because certain beliefs about Mary have been around a long time, it doesn't mean they aren't false beliefs. Again, this is an argument from tradition fallacy. The bottom line is, beliefs about Mary's sinlessness, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, etc. were not held by the early Christians, nor did they even enter their minds. These were slowly developed over time without any real witness or historical evidence, incorporated as tradition, and later dogmatized, then reinforced using the circular argument of the authority of the Church to decide what is true and what isn't, and using the power of anathematizing anyone who dares to go against it.

---

Once again this is false. I have pointed out several references to those in the early Church that believed these dogmas:

Immaculate Conception - Ascension of Isaiah 70 AD, Odes of Solomon 80 AD, Justin Martyr 155 AD, Irenaeus 189 AD, etc.
Perpetual Virginity - Protoevangelium of James 120 AD, Origen 248 AD, Hilary of Poitiers 354 AD, etc.
Assumption Epiphanius 377, Gregory of Tours 575 AD, Modestus of Jerusalem 634 AD, etc.

These are all considered part of the early Church. The last of the 7 recognized ecumenical councils didn't occur until 787 AD when the Church was still fighting against heresies and defining terms.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Catholics CLEARLY remove the part about bowing to idols in the Ten Commandments in their teaching. That isn't debatable. The numbering issue is not what's relevant here, it's the removing of that part in their teaching. Bowing and kneeling to the cross, which I already explained before, is not idolatry if they consider the cross a symbol of Jesus, and therefore they're really bowing to Jesus. Although, I do believe Christians should not do it, because we shouldn't even make an appearance of idolatry. If, however, they were bowing to the cross because they are attributing special significance and power to that cross, and they are making appeals/prayers to it, then YES, that would be idolatry.

---

You're dancing again. NO where in the bible does it state that one can bow to a cross. At best, you are hypocritical. At worst, you're an idolator.

There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. It is a natural body posture. The commandment is to NOT make or worship something as a God. Protestants have statues and pictures of Jesus in their cars, homes, churches, etc. That would make them in violation of the commandment. Do you or your church put up a nativity set during Advent? That would be considered idolatry according to you.

For the last time on this, Catholic do not believe that statues are gods. Catholics are not worshiping the statues as gods. They are simply honoring a great person that lived a holy life that is not in heaven.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I know of no Protestant that puts wives in the category of property, nor do I know of any Scriptural reference that says to do this.

---

Yes, you actually do. You place your wife in the same category as property in your ten commandments. That's disrespectful.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Your argument againt "personal Savior" is highly absurd. You're really trying here, but it just doesn't hold any water. "Savior" is a completely biblical concept, and Jesus being "personal" is a completely biblical concept. It'd be like saying although Mary being Jesus' "mother" is biblical, and her being "blessed" is biblical, you can't say "blessed mother" because that exact phrase isn't in the bible. You're REALLY reaching.

I will get into more detail tonight when I have more time, but Marian dogmas were NOT believed by the early church. Neither was the papacy or papal infallibility.

If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.

The Catholic belief that Protestants are putting their wives in the same category as property just because they include both property and their wives in that one commandment, is stupid and illogical. The commandment groups all the things that one should not covet together. Coveting is the subject. It makes sense to organize the commandments by they type of sin they're covering. You're argument is that since Protestants consider coveting ONE topic, it means that everything in the list of things not to covet is all equal to each other (property=spouse). This is complete logical nonsense. It just means one should not covet anything that belongs to one's neighbor. The commandment even groups humans together (wife, maidservant, manservant) to separate it from the house and animals. So this is yet another tremendous reach in search for a criticism in order to divert blame away from the blatant disregard of Scripture by Catholics when they remove a whole section.

Would you argue that a woman can covet another woman's husband, since the commandment was only against coveting wives? No, you wouldn't. So don't be similarly intellectually dishonest in your reading of the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. The Protestant version doesn't remove whole sections of the Commandments in their teaching, like the Catholics do. THAT's the issue.

Later tonight I will take on Sola Scriptura, or maybe later today if I have more time.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Catholics and Southern Baptists (AKA Non-denominational) are going at it. The clash of two literal dogmas who claim absolute truth.

---

So join the fray: do you think that a prayer to Mary where one says they "entrust their soul and eternal salvation in her hands" is heretical and idolatrous? I do not believe this prayer is heretical and idolatrous but I do not believe it. For Catholics Mary is an important belief in their spiritual journey and upbringing but I am a Protestant so Mary does not have the same implications for my faith.
"There is no necessary correlation between the intensity of emotion one experiences while contemplating a closely held belief and the probability that that belief is accurate." Anon

---

---

Thanks, Waco47. You've been of more help than you know!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Exodus 20:16

Matthew 10:33

---

Yes you are breaking both of those.

Does that mean you will stop your hateful behavior?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, the Catholic Church can not claim an unbroken line. We can go into this in more detail later, but briefly, there was no central Church authority in Rome until about 140 A.D. There were dispersed groups of elders and bishops, and no single leader. As I mentioned before, the book of Revelation also indicates there were dispersed group of churches, each with their own leader, but no "Pope".

---

"Pope" is simply the Greek word pappas which means 'Father." The Pope is always the Bishop of Rome. Please check Wiki and you will find the list starting with Peter, Linus (possible mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21), Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, etc.

Clement of Rome wrote (somewhere between 70 and 96 AD) his first epistle to Corinthians to help resolve a dispute in Corinth.
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop's office. Therefore for this reason . . . they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry"

Clement, who was the 4th Pope, was asserting his authority in his letter.

On his way to martyrdom, Ignatius of Antioch wrote in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8 -107 AD:

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus "Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

He latter writes in his letter to Rome:

"be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ . . . that there may be unity."

He was the first to use the term Catholic

One last one, Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies in 189:
"… for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world. "

Clearly, these men believed in the centrality of the Church in Rome and the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

My offer of the book still stands if you would like it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument againt "personal Savior" is highly absurd. You're really trying here, but it just doesn't hold any water. "Savior" is a completely biblical concept, and Jesus being "personal" is a completely biblical concept. It'd be like saying although Mary being Jesus' "mother" is biblical, and her being "blessed" is biblical, you can't say "blessed mother" because that exact phrase isn't in the bible. You're REALLY reaching.

---

The point was to be absurd. Giving Mary the title Queen of Heaven is not wrong, just because it's not in the bible. I've made a case for it. You don't accept due to your bias.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.

---

I've been reading several commentaries on this. Essentially St. Augustine grouped the first two "thou shall not's" together because he saw that as an extension of the first "Have no other gods before me." He recognized that making images (statues, pictures, etc.) is not inherently wrong. (God commands Moses to make a serpent and cherubs for the Ark.) Worshiping them as gods is.

The bowing referred to in Exodus and Deuteronomy is concerned with worshiping the false idols that were "believed" to be actual Gods. No Catholic believes that the statues are gods.

You don't think Christians should bow. OK, but doesn't mean it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. There are certain things that I don't do a mass out of reverence that Catholics are permitted to do. That doesn't make me right or better. I just hold myself to a different standard.

Catholics don't believe that the cross or statues have "special power" or that they have "intercessory" ability. The angels and saints themselves do. Rev 5:8.

I've stated the Catholic belief here. You don't accept it. I feel that we should just move on from this topic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Catholic belief that Protestants are putting their wives in the same category as property just because they include both property and their wives in that one commandment, is stupid and illogical. The commandment groups all the things that one should not covet together. Coveting is the subject. It makes sense to organize the commandments by they type of sin they're covering. You're argument is that since Protestants consider coveting ONE topic, it means that everything in the list of things not to covet is all equal to each other (property=spouse). This is complete logical nonsense. It just means one should not covet anything that belongs to one's neighbor. The commandment even groups humans together (wife, maidservant, manservant) to separate it from the house and animals. So this is yet another tremendous reach in search for a criticism in order to divert blame away from the blatant disregard of Scripture by Catholics when they remove a whole section.

---

St. Augustine's version of the Ten Commandments also separated the coveting into his 9th and 10th commandments. While Exodus does group wives with property, Deuteronomy draws a distinction between the two. This separates the lust of the flesh from the disordered desire for material things.

Irrespective of ordering, the important thing is that we follow them.

Again, I've stated the Catholic belief. Again, you do not agree. I think we beat this one to death.

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?

Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.

You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?

Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.

You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?

---

It's a form of idolatry. Christians aren't supposed to worship a book.

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Just because certain beliefs about Mary have been around a long time, it doesn't mean they aren't false beliefs. Again, this is an argument from tradition fallacy. The bottom line is, beliefs about Mary's sinlessness, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, etc. were not held by the early Christians, nor did they even enter their minds. These were slowly developed over time without any real witness or historical evidence, incorporated as tradition, and later dogmatized, then reinforced using the circular argument of the authority of the Church to decide what is true and what isn't, and using the power of anathematizing anyone who dares to go against it.

---

Once again this is false. I have pointed out several references to those in the early Church that believed these dogmas:

Immaculate Conception - Ascension of Isaiah 70 AD, Odes of Solomon 80 AD, Justin Martyr 155 AD, Irenaeus 189 AD, etc.

---

The concept of the Immaculate Conception, or the sinlessness of Mary, is an utterly foreign concept in inspired Scripture, and was NEVER taught by Jesus and his apostles. Thus, in the first 100 years of Jesus' church, it was not even a thought or even dreamed of. The universal early tradition of church fathers was that only Jesus (God) was sinless. This is seen in written testimony after written testimony. Not a single instance where someone else is named who they regarded as sinless.

The Immaculate Conception was an unknown concept for the first 1000 years of church history. Ludwig Ott, a Roman Catholic theologian who wrote the definitive reference Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, wrote:

"The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture......Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary." (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 200, 201)

Now let's address your early "sources" for the Immaculate Conception:

• the Ascension of Isaiah - your date for this is too early. The later section, in which the reference to Mary was written, is dated later, at about mid to late second century (150-200 AD). In chapter 11, it says that Mary looked up and saw a small child, and in her astonishment she saw that her womb was as it was before her pregnancy. All it intimated was that Mary had a miraculous, painless childbirth. It says nothing about her begin sinless. Important to note, this work was not accepted by the Church as inspired scripture.
• Protoevangelium of James - aka the Gospel of James, dated to the mid 2nd century. It is a pseudoepigraphal work, meaning it takes on the name of James, but it was not written by him. This work also only references Mary's painless, miraculous childbirth, and not her sinlessess. This work also was rejected by the Catholic Church. It was condemned by Pope Innocent 1 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree. Origen cited it as dubious.
• Odes of Solomon - dated late 1st to early 2nd century. This is a set of hymnals, with one hymn about Mary's painless childbirth. Nothing is said about her being sinless.
• Justin Martyr, Irenaeus - mid 2nd century. They introduce the idea of Mary being the new "Eve", free from original sin. However, according to reknown British theologican and biblical historian J.N.D. Kelly, Irenaeus taught that Mary committed personal sin (Haer 3.16,7).

If we go later in history, we see that St. Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo Regius, one the most important fathers of the Church during his period, taught that Mary died due to inherited (original) sin (Sermo 2 on Psalm 34) and that Mary received the grace of regeneration (Opus imperf. contra Julian IV)

Others who made references to Mary's personal sin include: John Chrysostom (347 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (376 AD), and Basil of Caesarea (300 AD). Seven bishops of Rome taught that Mary was conceived in sin: Leo I, Gregory I, Innocent III, Gelasius I, Innocent V, John XXII, Clement VI.

The Immaculate Conception in its dogmatized form, doesn't appear until the 12th century, by a British monk named Eadmer. And even then, he was vehemently opposed by the vast majority of writers.

Thank you Coke Bear. I always learn from your posts.

Coke Bear: "Clearly, these men believed in the centrality of the Church in Rome and the authority of the Bishop of Rome."

Good morning, Coke Bear. My problem with that statement is that it's obviously circular logic. The Church in Rome was the overwhelmingly dominant group in every aspect for over a thousand years, so arguing that we should trust Rome in these matters is dubious.

It's like the British telling the American colonists that England has been around for hundreds of years and therefore knows better than the upstart Americans how they should govern, or perhaps more applicable would be the Scribes and Pharisees telling Jesus that they had been around since Abraham and therefore should speak for the Covenant rather than God's own Son.

I have great respect for some of the Catholic Church's leaders and thinkers, but speaking bluntly there have been some very bad Popes, just as there have been some very bad Protestant leaders and non-denominational charlatans.

Sam made a point of saying 'don't worship a book'. Along those lines I would add I cannot agree to assuming a Pope speaks with the same authority as Scripture.

I am not dismissing the long history of the Catholic Church and some truly great work in Theology which came from it. I am just not willing to ignore the limits of human knowledge and wisdom just because someone carries a title.

Thanks.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?

Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.

You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?

---

It's a form of idolatry. Christians aren't supposed to worship a book.

---

Serious comments only, please.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument againt "personal Savior" is highly absurd. You're really trying here, but it just doesn't hold any water. "Savior" is a completely biblical concept, and Jesus being "personal" is a completely biblical concept. It'd be like saying although Mary being Jesus' "mother" is biblical, and her being "blessed" is biblical, you can't say "blessed mother" because that exact phrase isn't in the bible. You're REALLY reaching.

---

The point was to be absurd. Giving Mary the title Queen of Heaven is not wrong, just because it's not in the bible. I've made a case for it. You don't accept due to your bias.

---

This doesn't make any sense at all. You're saying that saying Mary is the Queen of Heaven isn't wrong even if it's not in the bible, because we say "personal Savior"......which IS in the bible?

I've not accepted your case not due to any bias, but because it nonsensical.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.

---

I've been reading several commentaries on this. Essentially St. Augustine grouped the first two "thou shall not's" together because he saw that as an extension of the first "Have no other gods before me." He recognized that making images (statues, pictures, etc.) is not inherently wrong. (God commands Moses to make a serpent and cherubs for the Ark.) Worshiping them as gods is.

The bowing referred to in Exodus and Deuteronomy is concerned with worshiping the false idols that were "believed" to be actual Gods. No Catholic believes that the statues are gods.

You don't think Christians should bow. OK, but doesn't mean it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. There are certain things that I don't do a mass out of reverence that Catholics are permitted to do. That doesn't make me right or better. I just hold myself to a different standard.

Catholics don't believe that the cross or statues have "special power" or that they have "intercessory" ability. The angels and saints themselves do. Rev 5:8.

I've stated the Catholic belief here. You don't accept it. I feel that we should just move on from this topic.

---

If Catholics don't feel what they're doing is wrong, that it doesn't violate the part about bowing to graven images in the Ten Commandments, then why do they remove it from their teaching?

And you can say that Catholics don't believe the statues to be gods all you like, but the inescapable fact is that they treat them as such. Catholics make supplications to the entities they represent, believing they have the ability to hear their thoughts and prayers, have "jurisdiction" over certain specific areas, and can effect results. This is no different than the worship of idols and gods in the pagan world. How is it that you can't see this?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Catholic belief that Protestants are putting their wives in the same category as property just because they include both property and their wives in that one commandment, is stupid and illogical. The commandment groups all the things that one should not covet together. Coveting is the subject. It makes sense to organize the commandments by they type of sin they're covering. You're argument is that since Protestants consider coveting ONE topic, it means that everything in the list of things not to covet is all equal to each other (property=spouse). This is complete logical nonsense. It just means one should not covet anything that belongs to one's neighbor. The commandment even groups humans together (wife, maidservant, manservant) to separate it from the house and animals. So this is yet another tremendous reach in search for a criticism in order to divert blame away from the blatant disregard of Scripture by Catholics when they remove a whole section.

---

St. Augustine's version of the Ten Commandments also separated the coveting into his 9th and 10th commandments. While Exodus does group wives with property, Deuteronomy draws a distinction between the two. This separates the lust of the flesh from the disordered desire for material things.

Irrespective of ordering, the important thing is that we follow them.

Again, I've stated the Catholic belief. Again, you do not agree. I think we beat this one to death.

---

If you're stating the Catholic belief to be that Protestants consider wives equal to property, then of course I disagree and so should you. Because it is a completely ignorant, false belief, as I have shown.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?

Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.

You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?

---

It's a form of idolatry. Christians aren't supposed to worship a book.

---

Serious comments only, please.

---

You claim the Bible as the only authority, but the Bible itself was defined by authority of the Church. The doctrine implicitly refutes itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?

Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.

You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?

---

Again, I enter into the fray. Scripture is the inspired revelation of God but not the only revelation. God encounters humans with God-self's. I think of Jesus revelation to me that saved me and I think of mu own call from God. I, also, see the incarnation of God in other people, particularly people in mission and, of course, Matthew reminds of Christ in the hungry, naked, imprisoned, thirsty, etc. Christ's incarnation in these the least, the last, and the lost is a revelation from God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?

Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.

You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?

---

Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

---

Sola Scriptura.

---

Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?

Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.

You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?

---

It's a form of idolatry. Christians aren't supposed to worship a book.

---

Serious comments only, please.

---

You claim the Bible as the only authority, but the Bible itself was defined by authority of the Church. The doctrine implicitly refutes itself.

---

Actually, most of the New Testament was already being circulated among the first Christians as being the authoritative word of God, before any Church council formally recognized them as canon. And from the testimony of the New Testament writers, it was clear to the first Christians that Jesus himself verified every single word in the Old Testament as the very word of God ("every jot and tittle"). So the bible being authoritative preceded any action of the Church.

But the Holy Spirit did indeed use the Catholic Church's dominant presence and power to promote and finalize the biblical canon, as well as weed out any growing heresies. Here's where many get the concept of "Sola Scriptura" wrong. It is not saying that a central church rule is to be completely disregarded. It is not saying that the Holy Spirit can't use these authorities for God's purpose or revelation. Sola Scriptura is the belief that the infallible word from God came from Jesus himself because Jesus is one with God, and is God; and because Jesus affirmed the word of truth would come from his apostles (John 14:26) we can consider the testimony and teachings of the apostles themselves to be Jesus' word, which in turn is God's word. Jesus did not give this stamp of authority on anyone or anything else but his apostles. Therefore, the only infallible word from God that the Church has in its possession, is the Old Testament and the writings and teachings of Jesus' apostles. It is upon this infallible word, which everything else - every new "revelation" and every tradition from man - must be measured.

The Church council had an incredible usefulness - by debating which books should be canonized in Scripture, a formal process of discovery was initiated, thus each book underwent total scrutiny, and being a formal procedure, the process was recorded in history. Thus, we today have access to what happened. and why certain books were included or excluded. The Church council did what a central Church authority should do - use their power to promote that which faithfully traces back to the first apostles and early Church, and quash obvious heresies that do not. What a central Church authority should NOT do, however, is make decisions based on their whim, and declare them authoritative simply by virtue of their own declaration. This is where fallible human-based institutions can fail, and the end result is dogma that contradicts infallible Scripture, as in the case of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which I illustrated above. It is for this exact reason, that the principle of Sola Scriptura is absolutely necessary.