The Problem

[Katholikos]

Let's DEBATE what happened with Pentecostalism

Fascinating. Do you know anything about it?

We know all we need to know about Pentecostalism. It was born January 1, 1901, in Topeka, Kansas, founded by Charles F. Parham, a Methodist Holiness minister, based on a manifestation of glossalalia professed by Miss Agnes Ozman. The Assembly of God was founded in 1914 in the Holy Land of Hot Springs, Arkansas. God bless America.

JMJ Likos

[ironmonk]

OK. PROVE that Mary was ascended BODILY into heaven.

Let's start with that myth.

I'm all ears.

Well, for one, the first Christians handed this down through the years. The same way the Scriptures were handed down.

Two, we see many of the early Churches wanted to keep the relics of the Apostles, no where do we see people having Mary's relics, because they didn't exist.

Three, Jesus honors His mother... Why wouldn't He just bring her to Heaven body and soul, the way other past prophet's went.

Four, how can you prove she didn't?

As for some other tidbits of info...

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[hyperdulia again]

God Bless You Bruce,

Perhaps your understanding of freedom is an erroneous one. We are not free to twist scripture and to turn Christianity into something it is not. We are not free to call what is true a lie and we are not free to call a lie the truth.

As best I can tell Protestantism is stifling, humorless, and fundamentally empty. There is no awe struck wonder at the mystery of the Incarnation, there are no life-giving, faith sustaining, soul remaking sacraments. There is no real reverence for the word of God even, the Holy Bible has been turned into ssome kind of useful tool for debating/abusing other Christians.

There is no freedom in Protestantism to approach the altar of the Lord and recieve the Sacrifice without which we would have no life in us.

The freedom that comes from knowing taht truth is truth is truth is absent, when you get right down to it Protestaants don't have any basis (other than cockiness) to tell a brother/sister that he/she is in error, what in the end makes and Protestants private interpretation better than that of any other Protestant's.

Ok I'm rambling.

[cmotherofpirl]

Katholikos..

The problem is . . .

that you believe that there is no such thing as religious Truth, that Truth is variable. Truth is whatever you decide it is, based on your own "sanctioned interpretation" of the scriptures or whatever you are using as a measure of truth from moment to moment. A True interpretation today, but perhaps not tomorrow. Truth for you changes every time culture changes. Religious "truth" is changeable, flexible and fluid from your perspective.

But Christianity is a revealed religion. Christ came to earth to reveal the TRUTH. We don't have to guess what it is, or reinvent it, or rediscover it 21 centuries later. It simply IS. We can accept it or reject it.

The TRUTH about God and salvation is like the truth of the laws of the universe. Truth does not change, as the law of gravity does not change. There isn't a "failure to think for ourselves." Rather, we acknowledge that Truth exists and that Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, knows more about God's truth than we do, since He Himself was God. Religious Truth was revealed by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church, "once for all" (Jude 3). Meaning there would be no development of myths, doctrine we have can all be found in the writings of the Apostles. That is the TRUTH the Church teaches. Christ promised to be with His Church ALWAYS (Mt 28:20), and sent the Holy Spirit as an abiding presence to be with the leaders of the Church, to help them recall his teachings, to guide them to all truth ALWAYS (Jn 14:16 et al.).

We don't get to "think for ourselves" that 2 + 2 = 5. We can only choose "4" because that's the objective truth. The pendulum on a clock is free to move, to work, as long as it is anchored, and so are we. We submit to Christ, who was God, and what he taught through the Apostles to the Church. The mission of the Church is to teach Christ's truths for the salvation of the world.

Catholicism is built on quicksand. All of Catholicism

is tradition-based, subject to men who "think for themselves," meaning they translate and interpret tradition however they wish. This has led to corruption and lies called a "truth."

But there's only one Truth.

Scripture is rock solid TRUTH. It is the work of Christ, who was God.

ABV Circle_Master

It is so sad that you act this way, because you are mocking God.

[mulls]

i think his point is well-taken.

[Bruce S]

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

Her "house" is all over the place, more hokus pokus. I have some information on Loretto, want that one? The house that MYSTERIOUSLY was transported to ITALY, then...on it's own...relocated itself several times in Italy before settling down? The house that has numerous Popes verifying it is real? Or are we talking about the revelations of what is here name, the mystic nun with the visions [darn, forget her name, have read her entire life story] who revealed the location of the home in the hills above Ephasus [that was sort of good, I actually tend to believe that one more]

There are NO eartly remains of Paul either, nor of most of the Apostles, that one means nothing, not a "proof" of anything.

Mary isn't even an OBJECT OF MENTION, in Acts, beyond the being present on the day of Pentecost and playing no role in that wonderful day. Luke, the author of Acts, is the Gospel writer most closely connected with Mary, doesn't "tradition" hold that HE, Luke, was her personal physician? So, if Mary was as important, AFTER the ressurection, and tied into the role that the Catholic Church has created for her, shouldn't she be MENTIONED by ANY work of the Gospel writers, especially by LUKE, ... AFTER....reread that word after, the day of Pentecost?

No, her role was completed, and she most likely lived out her life [i really do sort of like the house in Ephasus story, that one seems likely] and died and was buried as any normal woman would be.

If her role as a Co-Redemtrix [as it is frequently stated] was known by PEOPLE ALIVE IN THE TIMEFRAME of Acts, it is certainly not mentioned, and it would be.

It is the LACK of APOSTOLIC veneration of Mary, complete non mention of her after the ressurection, that is the hardest obstacle you have to overcome convincing ex Catholics and non Catholics, that this is anything to place more emphasis on than the role of vessel, mother, and wife of Joeseph, and the mother of SONS and DAUGHTERS other than...

You get the drift.

Explain Loretto.

[Bruce S]

God Bless You Bruce,

Perhaps your understanding of freedom is an erroneous one. We are not free to twist scripture and to turn Christianity into something it is not. We are not free to call what is true a lie and we are not free to call a lie the truth.

Agreed.

Explain Loretto.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Catholicism is built on quicksand. All of Catholicism

is tradition-based, subject to men who "think for themselves," meaning they translate and interpret tradition however they wish. This has led to corruption and lies called a "truth."

But there's only one Truth.

Catholicism was built on a rock, and that rock was Peter, not quicksand (Mat. 16:18). Jesus himself tells us that a rock is the best foundation:

"The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock."

Matthew 7:24-27

3 Days in Memphis and The Dude is back.

[cmotherofpirl]

i think his point is well-taken.

No, because truth NOT is variable or have different versions. Likos posts facts and bruce and circle mock them.

Edited January 2, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

You don't believe that Jesus is God?

[Norseman82]

Catholicms in NOT intellectually "liberating" it is total stifling of thought. I might comment that I read other threads, in the other forums,  and monitor other boards too, ones that I don't regularly post in. A commonality that I observe, is that whenever a good Catholic has an ORIGINAL thought, the IMMEDIATE reaction from the other Catholics is to run, go looksee what the OFFICIAL postion is on that idea, come back, and start correcting the original thinker to stomp out any divergence from the pre-written, officially approved, standard position.

The poor Catholic is stomped to death, IMMEDIATELY by the others on the board. Essential, as I see it, Catholics are NOT ALLOWED to "think" outside the "box" and if they dare try it, they are creamed.

Now, remember, I've lived in many different worlds here.

And participated in many online sites.

The people that really do the best job with thinking, is the Jews, remember, the very name Isra'el [spelling is intentional here] means "He Who Struggles/Fights with God]. They LOVE IT when the bible, or tradition, or scripture is inconsistant [and it really is...shhh...in many places] they think that God WANTS people to struggle to understand things, and it is those very questions that leads one deeper into study and a quest to come closer. Torah studies are NOT like Bible studies, they are almost like mudwrestling matches.

Here's the problem....many people have abused the freedom to develop wacko heresies. Like Arius in the 3rd-4th centuries, who extrapolated from some verse in Proverbs (I don't have it handy right now) that Jesus Christ was less than God. Like John Dominic Crossan in the present day who was part of a thing called the "Jesus Seminar" that reached a conclusion that Christ did not really rise from the dead except in the mind of the apostles. Crossan actually stated in a History Channel documentary a few weeks ago that Jesus never really celebrated the Last Supper but it was invented after Jesus' death.

BTW, what is the difference between sol*a* and sol*o* scriptura?

[Bruce S]

BTW, what is the difference between sol*a* and sol*o* scriptura?

A = means that Scripture is the foundation where disputes must be reconcilled with, traditon, writings, teachings are good, welcomed, but must reconcile themselves with scripture when there is a dispute. This is the NORMAL Protestant belief.

O = what Catholics think Protestants believe [sOME do, most don't] that means the ENTIRE BODY of knowledge in and of God and salvation is ONLY to be found in the scriptures, if it isn't in scripture, don't read it.

There is a MASSIVE difference, and most Catholics totally misunderstand Protestant thinking on this one.

Tradition is good, counts as commentary, the Magisterium doesn't exist, we don't look for a handbook of a thousand pages to tell us WHAT to think, nor does are our preachers anything OTHER than men or women [some have them, some don't] who are ordained to TEACH, lead by example, and administer the affairs of the church, they have the roles that are prescribed biblically, and are not supernatural creatures that have any part in salvation, not through word, deed, or sacremental powers.

Catholics like to say Protestants don't UNDERSTAND what the Catholic Church teaches [actually a lot of us really do, just reject a lot of it] but I find the ignorance of some Catholics on Protestanism [some not all] equally disturbing.

[cmotherofpirl]

A = means that Scripture is the foundation where disputes must be reconcilled with, traditon, writings, teachings are good, welcomed, but must reconcile themselves with scripture when there is a dispute. This is the NORMAL Protestant belief.

O = what Catholics think Protestants believe [sOME do, most don't] that means the ENTIRE BODY of knowledge in and of God and salvation is ONLY to be found in the scriptures, if it isn't in scripture, don't read it.

There is a MASSIVE difference, and most Catholics totally misunderstand Protestant thinking on this one.

Tradition is good, counts as commentary, the Magisterium doesn't exist, we don't look for a handbook of a thousand pages to tell us WHAT to think, nor does are our preachers anything OTHER than men or women [some have them, some don't] who are ordained to TEACH, lead by example, and administer the affairs of the church, they have the roles that are prescribed biblically, and are not supernatural creatures that have any part in salvation, not through word, deed, or sacremental powers.

Catholics like to say Protestants don't UNDERSTAND what the Catholic Church teaches [actually a lot of us really do, just reject a lot of it] but I find the ignorance of some Catholics on Protestanism [some not all] equally disturbing.

I have met many evangelicals who believe the "O" theory. They can't make a move unless they can read it in the bible or their preacher agrees to it.

The "a" theory is not biblical.

As to denying the teaching authority of the Church, if you want to keep reinventing the wheel - have fun.

To accept the authority of the Bible is to accept the authority of the Church which it came from, and the councils who canoned it, and copied it over centuries. To reject the authority of the Church is to reject everything that happened since St. John died around the year 100AD.

[Katholikos]

A = means that Scripture is the foundation where disputes must be reconcilled with, traditon, writings, teachings are good, welcomed, but must reconcile themselves with scripture when there is a dispute. This is the NORMAL Protestant belief.

O = what Catholics think Protestants believe [sOME do, most don't] that means the ENTIRE BODY of knowledge in and of God and salvation is ONLY to be found in the scriptures, if it isn't in scripture, don't read it.

There is a MASSIVE difference, and most Catholics totally misunderstand Protestant thinking on this one.

Tradition is good, counts as commentary, the Magisterium doesn't exist, we don't look for a handbook of a thousand pages to tell us WHAT to think, nor does are our preachers anything OTHER than men or women [some have them, some don't] who are ordained to TEACH, lead by example, and administer the affairs of the church, they have the roles that are prescribed biblically, and are not supernatural creatures that have any part in salvation, not through word, deed, or sacremental powers.

Catholics like to say Protestants don't UNDERSTAND what the Catholic Church teaches [actually a lot of us really do, just reject a lot of it] but I find the ignorance of some Catholics on Protestanism [some not all] equally disturbing.

According to Bruce S, Martin Luther didn't get the definition of Sola Scriptura right, even though he is the author of it. And the Westminster Confession didn't get it right either. So, Prots have been wrong all these 487 years. But now Bruce S has defined it -- his way -- until some other Prot comes along (tomorrow or next week) and invents yet another definition of it.

Have you ever seen Protestants "reconciling their differences" with scripture and coming up jointly with a single answer? No sireee, Bob! Sola Scriptura with its concomitant doctrine of private interpretation assures each and every one of them that their opinion is right. So there's nothing to reconcile. Did Zwingli reconcile with Calvin? Or Calvin with Luther?

JMJ Likos

[littleflower+JMJ]

please please please! are you not here to learn?

because everytime someone explains something if it doesn't in to what you already know or believe in you cast it aside, come on, be sincere, likos is stating the truth. like cmom said, dont mock the truth.

but seeing someone changing facts to fit them and their beliefs is sadly not surprising......nor something new..... -_-

there is only one truth.

God bless and pax christi.

Your sister in Christ,

littleflower

+JMJ