[De Maria]

heh heh heh - well if you have no other defense, go after the person, right?

Come now? You've essentially lost all credibility.

First you claim that Newman said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. But you conveniently left out the sentence right whereby Newman identified the New Religion as Christendom.

Then you claim that Rev 17 1-6 is about the Catholic Church. But a simple reading of Scripture reveals it is Jerusalem.

Then you claim that the keys to hell and death are the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

I was doing you a service by assuming that you couldn't read English. Otherwise I'd have to assume that you are twisting and spinning the written word intentionally.

So pagan ritual's dressed up with Christian words thrown in is okay - is that your position?

No. These are Christian rituals. And Christian rituals are the truths of God lived and portrayed in order to re-present, to make present what God has done for us.

So, just as you now worship in a formerly pagan language, English. The rituals are Christian but the language is of pagan origins.

In the case of the attire, you also worship in a formerly pagan attire. The rituals are Christian but the attire is pagan is of pagan origins.

No, I am not protestant.

If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. You show every sign of being Protestant.

What is it that you think that I was saying that I did not say. You appear mixed up. Constantine did indeed start the Roman catholic Church in 325AD - I have stated that consistently - why - you think that somewhere that I denied that?

Oh, sorry, there's a period there:

I never said that. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church.

You are correct, you continue to claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church even though your claim has been proven false from the very document you presented.

they have as much evidence as your denomination - empty claims on paper.

The Scripture is also on paper. Is it empty?

So claims aren't empty simply because they are on paper are they. Another one of your non sequitur conclusions.

The fact is, the claims of the Church are verifiable because the paper on which they are written are ancient. Far more ancient than your new version of Christianity.

Then why are we having this discussion? Let's examine your tradition using God's word.

Certainly. I believe we've started doing so already in these various threads. We'll also continue to hightlight that your pillar, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is nowhere in Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture.

In addition, all the doctrines which have been derived by Sola Scriptura which contradict the Catholic Church also contradict Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Wondergirl]

the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is nowhere in Scripture

Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary?

[De Maria]

Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary?

Apocalypse 12 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

Note that this woman's child is Jesus. And Jesus' mother is Mary.

In addition, Mary has always been known by Christians as the New Ark of the Covenant. Why? Because in the Old Covenant, the Ark contained the Word of God in the Ten Commandments, the Rod of Aaron, representing the Levitical Priesthood and the manna, bread, from heaven.

Mary, being Jesus' mother, held in her womb, the Word of God made flesh, the eternal Priest, and the Bread of Life.

In addition, the Shekinah cloud overshadowed the first Ark,

Leviticus 16 2 And he commanded him, saying, Speak to Aaron thy brother, that he enter not at all into the sanctuary, which is within the veil before the propitiatory, with which the ark is covered, lest he die, (for I will appear in a cloud over the oracle,)

And the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.

Luke 1 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

If we look at the very last verse in Chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, and keep in mind that the Bible was originally printed without Chapter designations, we see:

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.

In other words, these two sentences were originally side by side:

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

Therefore, St. John was telling us, the woman with the twelve stars which he saw in heaven is she who is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Come now? You've essentially lost all credibility.

In your eyes perhaps. That does not bother me.

First you claim that Newman said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. But you conveniently left out the sentence right whereby Newman identified the New Religion as Christendom.

Sigh - we went through this once already. Mormons say that they are Christian. JWs say that they are Christian. Some Wghite supremacist say that they are Christian. Just claiming it does not make it say. I already agreed that he said that the new religion which mixed pagainism with the church was Christian, but nonetheless it was a new relion because once you mix pagaism into the church, it is not the same. Indeed even it's leader became the Pontiff (the pagan title for their priest).

Then you claim that Rev 17 1-6 is about the Catholic Church. But a simple reading of Scripture reveals it is Jerusalem.

Really? All 7 hills?

Then you claim that the keys to hell and death are the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

We dealt with that already. Perhaps if you have difficulties understanding this point, we should discuss how scripture describes the gospel.

No. These are Christian rituals. And Christian rituals are the truths of God lived and portrayed in order to re-present, to make present what God has done for us.

That is what I said - you are saying that once pagan rituals are wrapped in Christian decoration or mixed with Christian words, it becomes Christ - right? I disagree because we find a solid thread in scripture where God would not permit any adulteration of His people or teachings with paganism.

So, just as you now worship in a formerly pagan language, English. The rituals are Christian but the language is of pagan origins.

In the case of the attire, you also worship in a formerly pagan attire. The rituals are Christian but the attire is pagan is of pagan origins.

If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. You show every sign of being Protestant.

Would uyou like to go through the appearances of pagaism in your denomination?

You are correct, you continue to claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church even though your claim has been proven false from the very document you presented.

Your claim does not make it so.

The Scripture is also on paper. Is it empty?

No, and that is the crux of the issue. Scripture is the word of God. The claims of your denomination are words of men.

[ScottRC]

Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary?

While De Maria shows that the teaching is not contrary to scripture and is inspired by the Bible, you have to remember that as a Catholic, we believe in the development of doctrine -- that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can and does come to deeper appreciations of facets in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. Jesus promised as much in John 16:13. Non-Catholic Christians/Protestants, however, believe that the Faith is static -- frozen solidly in the pages of a recorded document (sola scriptura).. . And that this recorded document is all we have.

Well, if that's the case, then it necessarily follows that you MUST be able to show that your interpretation of this document is consistent and repeatable for anyone (in whatever age) who reads the Biblical record... there MUST BE an objective standard for interpretation or else all you have is Biblical relativism.

[arcura]

Tj3,
You ARE a Protestant. Period.
I know of no one who protest more against the Catholic Church than you do.
That MAKES YOU a Protestant whether you admit it or not.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
You ARE a Protestant. Period.

Then you must be a Mormon since in the past you have defended Mormonism.

[arcura]

Tj3,
Wrong again.
I am not a Mormon.
I have defended their RIGHT to believe as they want to just as I have defended your right to believe and you wish.
Never-the-less the fact remains that you ARE a Protestant as I explained why you are.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Wrong again.
I am not a Mormon.

And I am not a Protestant. BBut if you persist on calling me something that I am not, I would be in my rights to call you something that you may not be, but that you convinced several people that you were through your defense of several key Mormon doctrines.

I have defended their RIGHT to believe as they want to just as I have defended your right to believe and you wish.

Fred, I don't know of anyone who has attacked my right to believe over the years as I wish more than you. Some perhaps equally, but no one more.

Never-the-less the fact remains that you ARE a Protestant as I explained why you are.

And you therefore are a Mormon.

[Wondergirl]

we believe in the development of doctrine -- that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can and does come to deeper appreciations of facets in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles.

In other words, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible.

[Tj3]

In other words, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible.

Neither, BTW, is the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, which was "developed" afterwards by men.

[Wondergirl]

Neither, BTW, is the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, which was "developed" afterwards by men.

I was taking it one piece at a time. Thank you, though, for mentioning that as another instance.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
The Assumption of Mary is based somewhat on the bible and is a Church teaching.
In the bible we see that Jesus was a perfect person, of great power and the son of God.
Being perfect He was/is a perfect son who loved and honored His mother perfectly.
If I had the ability to take my earthly mother into heaven rather than letting her body rot in a cold lonely grave I would do so.
The Church believes that Jesus did that.
It makes sense to me and a great many other people.
So The Assumption of Mary has become a feast day in The Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Wondergirl,
The Assumption of Mary is based somewhat on the bible

Really? Where is this found in the Bible. I'd love to see the reference so that we can look at the context.

[Wondergirl]

rather than letting her body rot in a cold lonely grave

Well, that sure says a lot about the rest of us Christians who end up rotting in cold lonely graves! Why didn't Jesus want to bring all of His dead children immediately to heaven?

[arcura]

Tj3,
Please re-read what I said.
It is based on who and what Jesus was and is as I explained.
Don't try to read something into my post that was not there.
Your habit of twisting things continues to get you into trouble.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[Wondergirl]

Tj3,
Please re-read what I said.
It is based on who and what Jesus was and is as I explained.
Don't try to read something into my post that was not there.
Your habit of twisting things continues to get you into trouble.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

But there is nothing in the Bible to substantiate Mary's Assumption. Correct?

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Please re-read what I said.
It is based on who and what Jesus was and is as I explained.
Don't try to read something into my post that was not there.
Your habit of twisting things continues to get you into trouble.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I read it, as I have the hundreds of other times that you posted this on this and other boards. BTW, your false accusations and abusive comments do not enhance the credibility of you argument. Scripture, on the other hand, would.

I note that you did not respond to my request for your claimed Biblical backup. That tells me that you cannot find it either.

[inthebox]

Absolutely, and I am not saying the understanding of consequences should be omitted.

There have just been so many numerous occasions where people ask if someone is going to hell for some type of sin. I can't help but wonder if these people are taught to be good people and do good things because of fear of the consequences rather than WHY they should be good people. I have spoken to many atheists who turn away from God because of the wrong ideas they have in their head about Him. The first impression that some got of God was cruelty. First impressions are hard to get rid of so guess what that means for those people?

It should be more along the lines of...This is why and how you receive forgiveness for that sin you mentioned...Instead of...That sin will send you to burn for eternity.

Everyone who has posted so far has agreed that attempting to get people to believe in God by using the fear of hell is shallow and it is NOT lasting.

But the truth still remains that it happens all the time and I feel it's just so wrong!! We need to let God do the convicting! I don't know about everyone else but God didn't convict me to ask for salvation by threatening me with hell, but rather He convicted me by showing me that I am better than the sin that bound me down. Though I understood hell was the consquence of not choosing God, He didn't use that against me.

Conviction then and even from my sins now does not come from fear of the punishment, but it does come from the knowledge He instills in me that He created me to be better than that, and doing right and always being a good person is the only right and good way to be. When I fall sort of His expectation, that is my conviction!

My point is that's the way it should be and would be if people would let God do the convicting. But it doesn't always happen that way.

This is a good follow up to your OP :)

There is no doubt that God is to fear, be afraid of - OT is full examples of people dying just being close to the tabernacle or in Acts when the contribution was not enough. :eek:

I think we have to understand the perfection and holiness of God that is incompatible with sin and imperfection.

Hell is Biblically real! And it I think it legitimate to acknowledge this.
What good is the cure if you don't know your sick:confused:

Demanding perfection whether religious or secular is cruel - no one can measure up, Rom 3. and it leads to hypocrisy. :(

I think God in His infinite wisdom and mercy knows this and it hurts Him to know He would be alone in Heaven and that His creations would be eternally separate. - Hell if you want.

In the OT especially Hosea there is a cycle of rebellion punishment and forgiveness. God is merciful! And John 3 :)

I do have a problem with Christians bringing people to Christ and then not showing them how to live - NT. Grace, love, mercy, forgiveness Galatians and 1 John for example.

[Tj3]

I do have a problem with Christians bringing people to Christ and then not showing them how to live - NT. Grace, love, mercy, forgiveness Galatians and 1 John for example.

This is a very important point. Scripture tells us to make disciples,

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV

And yet I see people being led to the Lord and then not being helped to get grounded in a church where they can get sound teaching, nor are they helped to get solid grounding in God's word, and as a result, they are left to fall away from their faith or to perhaps be deceived by false teachings or cults.

There is much more to making a disciple than simply giving them the gospel.