Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

Lukaris · May 16, 2024

There were dozens of disputed writings in the early church. Some were faithfully sound and others not. The New Testament was understandably the most debated. To be scripture, the writings had to be faithful and from an apostle. Some writings that were faithfully sound were rejected as scripture but aspects of them became part of tradition.

A major example, I believe, is the Epistle of Barnabas which was debated as being from Barnabas the evangelist friend of Paul. There were some writings that would hijack an apostle’s name and preach deception. There is no such intent in this epistle. It may be from apostolic times, its writer is accepted as being named Barnabas, and it is faithfully Christian.

It is also, strangely enough, a bit flaky in some of its allegories. As time went on, more and more clergy realized that Barnabas, the friend of Paul, would have written a better letter. I must say this with utter humility, whoever this Baranabas was preached true faith probably at a time of severe persecution. It is also possible that what might appear as “flaky” might reflect communication under persecution no longer understood. Barnabas also knew the Old Testament well even if unusual at times. There are parts of Barnabas that are worth reading also.

Info on the epistle of Barnabas:

Epistle of Barnabas - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Liturgist · May 16, 2024

BobRyan said:
Is it your claim that we should delete all the NT that is not followed by "go and do likewise"??? Seriously!!

Of course not. Do not put words in my mouth. But not all actions taken in the NT are universally applicable or are commandments. For example, it would be a terrible idea to try to heal someone from blindness by putting dirt made into mud with our saliva in their eyes, as our Lord did; he could do this, because He was all holy, whereas we are not, and we might well give someone an infection.

The Liturgist · May 16, 2024

BobRyan said:
This thread is not focused on "ignoring details"

What makes you think I said that? Seriously Bob, I am absolutely bewildered that you think I suggested as much.

it is focused on the fact that even Catholic scholars themselves admit that the Marian doctrines have no basis in scripture and have no historicity in the first century Christian church.

If some Roman Catholic scholars deny the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, what difference does it make? Your own denomination has members and former members who do not believe that Ellen G White was an inspired prophet, one of whom, @Adventist Heretic , is a member of this forum. I

Specifically with regards to Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and the other traditional Protestant churches (Presbyterianism, Congregationalism and Methodism, primarily), it is fairly common to find left wing scholars church who make a career out of denying traditional doctrine, and get away with it because in the mainline churches, the idea of declaring someone excommunicate or anathema is unthinkable.

The Liturgist · May 16, 2024

BobRyan said:
false.

My version is seen in Acts 17:11 and in Mark 7:7-13.
And yours?

I must require that you not quote my sentences partially, so as to change the apparent meaning of what I was saying.

What I wrote, untruncated, was that your idea of what Sola Scriptura is, clashes with the definition given by Martin Luther and adhered to by Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists. It is more accurately referred to as “Nuda scriptura” or as “Solo scriptura.”

Also not true.
You are batting 1000

Your denomination teaches its members that EGW was a prophetess, and her writings inspired prophecy. Obviously most of your members are going to read the Bible in a manner that aligns with her interpretation, if they believe your church on the subject of her inspiration. This is the subtle pressure I was referring to. Most denominations including mine consider no individual since the Apostles and Evangelists of the New Testament to have written inspired writings.

Ellen White opposed a number of things like the 7th day Sabbath, vegeterianism etc.

Indeed, and other people who have studied the Bible in depth to produce works of systematic theology that do not reference the traditions or history of the early church, such as Karl Barth, with his five-volume Kirchliche Dogmatik, did not come up with an interpretation of scripture that looked like hers. Rather, it looked closer to Roman Catholicism, with infant baptism and so on, than to Adventism. And Karl Barth was a man of great learning, with a profound education and a mind as sharp as that of John Calvin, which is saying something.

BobRyan said:
Now back to the actual topic - regarding the fact that Marian doctrine is declared not to be in the Bible AND not in the historicity of first century sources. And this is not something that only non-Catholic scholars notice - but as the OP shows (see page 1) - Catholic scholars also admit to the same fact.

The majority of Catholic scholars, including the most important ones such as Gerhard Cardinal Muller and Pope Benedict XVI, do not admit to such a thing. In the case of the Assumption, furthermore, not only do the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars agree with this doctrine, but also all of the Eastern Orthodox scholars, who in my opinion are the most intellectually robust in Christendom, as well as the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East and a very large number of Anglicans, who also do very good scholarship.

Thus, as I argued above, your central argument is irrelevant, and as our Anglican friend @Jipsah pointed out, it is not like your own church is devoid of beliefs lacking historical or scriptural support.

@MarkRohfrietsch , out of curiosity, did Martin Luther to your knowledge have any objection to the belief that on the occasion of her death, the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven? And is this something Evangelical Catholic Lutherans tend to believe? If I recall you do accept her perpetual virginity.[/QUOTE]

hislegacy · May 16, 2024

The Liturgist said:
Also @BobRyan there is the problem that the radical version of Nuda Scriptura you advocate clashes with Sola Scriptura as defined by Martin Luther, as our most pious and excellent friend @MarkRohfrietsch can attest, a definition received by Anglicans and traditional Methodists (see the Anglican tripod and the Wesleyan quadrilateral), and in that system, tradition is acceptable as long as it does not contradict with Scripture.

The issue I believe is that this is the GENERAL Theology forum and precious brothers and sisters from a variety of denominations come to post their theological views. My most gracious, pious and excellent friend @BobRyan is clearly demonstrating what many millions of believers believe is the weakness for the teaching that you and your most pious and excellent friends regard as a strong belief system. In accepting the traditional Roman Catholic and other - teaching of the Veneration of Mary - Mary Immaculate etc. is based no where in scripture, but 100% in tradition.

That is our differences.

BobRyan said:
BobRyan said:
"they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF the things taught by the Apostle Paul WERE So" Acts 17:11 -- which apparently some people think is not in the Bible.

Is it your claim that we should delete all the NT that is not followed by "go and do likewise"??? Seriously!!

Acts 17:11 they are blessed and praised by the author of Acts for doing what they did -- instead of "oh that is bad but we are not going to mention it".

Mark 7:7-13 is another great example of slam hammering tradition "sola scriptura".

Well said my Brother - but I suspect it falls on deaf ears - just as the others traditions fall on deaf ears with others.

It's a riff in the Body of Christ for thousands of years - and some will argue that also.

The Liturgist · May 16, 2024

hislegacy said:
The issue I believe is that this is the GENERAL Theology forum and precious brothers and sisters from a variety of denominations come to post their theological views.

Yes they do, and Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and other traditional members are included among them, and we have every right to argue for the diverse theological positions of our respective churches, which account for a majority of the Christian population worldwide and also a large percentage of the membership of this site, since this is indeed General Theology.

If you want a safe space where you can freely criticize us without our being able to respond, there are several Congregational forums that you can use. However BobRyan posted this here, and has posted other threads in Denomination Specific Theology (which exists specifically for debating the doctrines of specific denominations), because he enjoys debating us, and we enjoy debating him, and despite our theological differences, I have known BobRyan for years, since I have now been a member of the forum for half a decade, and I have an amicable relationship with him and regard him as a friend, since at the end of the day we are all Nicene Christians.

hislegacy · May 16, 2024

The Liturgist said:
Yes they do, and Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and other traditional members are included among them, and we have every right to argue for the diverse theological positions of our respective churches, which account for a majority of the Christian population worldwide and also a large percentage of the membership of this site, since this is indeed General Theology.

you are 100% correct on the highlighted statements above.

The Liturgist said:
If you want a safe space where you can freely criticize us without our being able to respond, there are several Congregational forums that you can use.

As are you my Brother in Christ - Right above this one is your traditional Theology safe space. Here you and I can debate our thoughts and beliefs on Theology.

The Liturgist said:
However BobRyan posted this here, and has posted other threads in Denomination Specific Theology (which exists specifically for debating the doctrines of specific denominations), because he enjoys debating us, and we enjoy debating him, and despite our theological differences, I have known BobRyan for years, since I have now been a member of the forum for half a decade, and I have an amicable relationship with him and regard him as a friend, since at the end of the day we are all Nicene Christians.

I hope one day you will feel the same about me.

MarkRohfrietsch · May 16, 2024

The Liturgist said:
I must require that you not quote my sentences partially, so as to change the apparent meaning of what I was saying.

What I wrote, untruncated, was that your idea of what Sola Scriptura is, clashes with the definition given by Martin Luther and adhered to by Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists. It is more accurately referred to as “Nuda scriptura” or as “Solo scriptura.”

Your denomination teaches its members that EGW was a prophetess, and her writings inspired prophecy. Obviously most of your members are going to read the Bible in a manner that aligns with her interpretation, if they believe your church on the subject of her inspiration. This is the subtle pressure I was referring to. Most denominations including mine consider no individual since the Apostles and Evangelists of the New Testament to have written inspired writings.

Indeed, and other people who have studied the Bible in depth to produce works of systematic theology that do not reference the traditions or history of the early church, such as Karl Barth, with his five-volume Kirchliche Dogmatik, did not come up with an interpretation of scripture that looked like hers. Rather, it looked closer to Roman Catholicism, with infant baptism and so on, than to Adventism. And Karl Barth was a man of great learning, with a profound education and a mind as sharp as that of John Calvin, which is saying something.

The majority of Catholic scholars, including the most important ones such as Gerhard Cardinal Muller and Pope Benedict XVI, do not admit to such a thing. In the case of the Assumption, furthermore, not only do the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars agree with this doctrine, but also all of the Eastern Orthodox scholars, who in my opinion are the most intellectually robust in Christendom, as well as the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East and a very large number of Anglicans, who also do very good scholarship.

Thus, as I argued above, your central argument is irrelevant, and as our Anglican friend @Jipsah pointed out, it is not like your own church is devoid of beliefs lacking historical or scriptural support.

@MarkRohfrietsch , out of curiosity, did Martin Luther to your knowledge have any objection to the belief that on the occasion of her death, the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven? And is this something Evangelical Catholic Lutherans tend to believe? If I recall you do accept her perpetual virginity.

[/QUOTE]
No, no issue at all. We consider it a matter of pious opinion; if she was assumed bodily into heaven, she would not be the first by scriptural record. Were she not, and those of pious opinion believed she was; such would have little or no effect on the fate of one's immortal soul. Such belief, even were it to be wrong, shows only great respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord. Scripture tells us to honor her and always to remember that she was blessed.

As my Pastor noted in a Bible Study last Sunday based on the account from Acts about the calling of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot' she is especially mentioned in the account because she is special.

Only Mary was physically joined to our Lord God Jesus Christ via an umbilical cord.
From the pen of Fr. Martin himself:

O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example.

Jipsah · May 16, 2024

BobRyan said:
This thread is not focused on "ignoring details" it is focused on the fact that even Catholic scholars themselves admit that the Marian doctrines have no basis in scripture and have no historicity in the first century Christian church.

I still don't see why that bothers you, when one of the doctrines that I understand to be central to the SDA faith, "Investigative Judgement", is never even hinted at in Scripture. Sorry, but it sounds like you're a lot more concerned with the the mote in the other guy's eye when you may have a optical gravel of your own, reckon?

BobRyan said:
Indeed a thread titled "ideas for cooperating on an ecumenical basis" may well be interesting... but this thread - is not that thread.

Looks like to me like the SDAs can plead Not Guilty to the charge of being Sola Scriptura.

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

BobRyan said:

This thread is not focused on "ignoring details" it is focused on the fact that even Catholic scholars themselves admit that the Marian doctrines have no basis in scripture and have no historicity in the first century Christian church.

Jipsah said:
I still don't see why that bothers you

I am fine with rejecting doctrine that even the Catholic church admits is not in the Bible and has no historicity in the first century church.

It does not bother me to reject something in that category.

Jipsah said:
, when one of the doctrines that I understand to be central to the SDA faith, "Investigative Judgement", is never even hinted at in Scripture.

If one promises never to read Daniel 7, and never to read Rom 2, and never to read 2 Cor 5:10 ... etc then one could say "that doctrine is not in the remaining bits of the Bible I do choose to read".

But if one reads Daniel 7 they see a pre-advent judgment based out of the things written in books ("investigative" for those not opposed to that word, but pick any word you like).

So when the group promoting a given doctrine says - we don't find this in the Bible and it has no historicity in the first century authors - well I think it is worth mentioning.

You might think that such a thing is what all churches do - but I beg to differ.

==============================

IN any case - even though you are doing it in a somewhat backhanded way - you appear to agree that your denomination is doing that very thing as stated in the OP, so then thanks for the agreement.

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

hislegacy said:
. My most gracious, pious and excellent friend @BobRyan is clearly demonstrating what many millions of believers believe is the weakness for the teaching that you and your most pious and excellent friends regard as a strong belief system. In accepting the traditional Roman Catholic and other - teaching of the Veneration of Mary - Mary Immaculate etc. is based no where in scripture, but 100% in tradition.

That is our differences

Indeed - a not-so-subtle detail that some may wish to divert from. But in this case it is very "instructive" because it is Catholic scholarship itself admitting to the details I have posted in the OP.

"Some" on this board respond to "not in scripture" and "no historicity in the NT church of the first century" with a kind of "So what? We do that all the time --- are you saying we shouldn't do that sort of thing?".

Well if that is their view - they should be thanking me for pointing out their own policy in that regard.

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

BobRyan said:

Now back to the actual topic - regarding the fact that Marian doctrine is declared not to be in the Bible AND not in the historicity of first century sources. And this is not something that only non-Catholic scholars notice - but as the OP shows (see page 1) - Catholic scholars also admit to the same fact.

The Liturgist said:
The majority of Catholic scholars, including the most important ones such as Gerhard Cardinal Muller and Pope Benedict XVI, do not admit to such a thing.

Fine - they may be your guides... but for me the Catholic scholar dealing with the "actual topic" of the "historicity of Mary" - saying the very thing that you appear to reject, leads me to conclude that informed Catholic scholars that actually write on the topic know full well that what Raymond is saying is true.

AND if you look at a number of the Catholic responses on this thread -- they too are posting in a way to affirm the Catholic scholar in the OP, right at the point you want to tell Catholics to reject him. How "instructive".

The Liturgist said:
In the case of the Assumption, furthermore, not only do the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars agree with this doctrine,

Bait and switch - again??

I did not say that Catholics don't "believe" the doctrine - I said their own scholarship points out that they believe it no matter that they have no source for it in scripture and no historicity for it in the first century authors.

The Liturgist said:
but also all of the Eastern Orthodox scholars, who in my opinion are the most intellectually robust in Christendom, as well as the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East and a very large number of Anglicans, who also do very good scholarship.

I don't say that no one has scholarship except for the Catholic church ... you are turning the point to an odd direction

The Liturgist said:
Thus, as I argued above, your central argument is irrelevant

You have free will and can post whatever you like.

My interest is in logic and reason.

The Liturgist said:
, and as our Anglican friend @Jipsah pointed out, it is not like your own church is devoid of beliefs lacking historical or scriptural support.

Again you shoot your argument in the foot trying to have it both ways.

Either you agree that the lack of Bible support and historicity in the NT first century sources is a problem or you imagine that doctrine should not be established in scripture and historicity in the first century. You are trying to have it "both ways"

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

The Liturgist said:
I must require that you not quote my sentences partially, so as to change the apparent meaning of what I was saying.

What I wrote, untruncated, was that your idea of what Sola Scriptura is, clashes with the definition given by Martin Luther and adhered to by Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists. It is more accurately referred to as “Nuda scriptura” or as “Solo scriptura.”

Your denomination teaches its members that EGW was a prophetess, and her writings inspired prophecy. Obviously most of your members are going to read the Bible in a manner that aligns with her interpretation, if they believe your church on the subject of her inspiration. This is the subtle pressure I was referring to. Most denominations including mine consider no individual since the Apostles and Evangelists of the New Testament to have written inspired writings.

Indeed, and other people who have studied the Bible in depth to produce works of systematic theology that do not reference the traditions or history of the early church, such as Karl Barth, with his five-volume Kirchliche Dogmatik, did not come up with an interpretation of scripture that looked like hers. Rather, it looked closer to Roman Catholicism, with infant baptism and so on, than to Adventism. And Karl Barth was a man of great learning, with a profound education and a mind as sharp as that of John Calvin, which is saying something.

The majority of Catholic scholars, including the most important ones such as Gerhard Cardinal Muller and Pope Benedict XVI, do not admit to such a thing. In the case of the Assumption, furthermore, not only do the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars agree with this doctrine, but also all of the Eastern Orthodox scholars, who in my opinion are the most intellectually robust in Christendom, as well as the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East and a very large number of Anglicans, who also do very good scholarship.

Thus, as I argued above, your central argument is irrelevant, and as our Anglican friend @Jipsah pointed out, it is not like your own church is devoid of beliefs lacking historical or scriptural support.

@MarkRohfrietsch , out of curiosity, did Martin Luther to your knowledge have any objection to the belief that on the occasion of her death, the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven? And is this something Evangelical Catholic Lutherans tend to belie

Do you insist that I quote-include your entire post each time???

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

BobRyan said:
"they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF the things taught by the Apostle Paul WERE So" Acts 17:11 -- which apparently some people think is not in the Bible.

The Liturgist said:
We are not instructed to do likewise.

Is it your claim that we should delete all the NT that is not followed by "go and do likewise"??? Seriously!!

Acts 17:11 they are blessed and praised by the author of Acts for doing what they did -- instead of "oh that is bad but we are not going to mention it".

Mark 7:7-13 is another great example of slam hammering tradition "sola scriptura".

The Liturgist said:
Of course not. Do not put words in my mouth. But not all actions taken in the NT are universally applicable or are commandments.

I have two examples in the NT text that we BOTH know many Christians (if not all) fully agree with --

One in Acts 17:11
and one in Mark 7:7-13

You have not identified a single issue with either one - you don't quote them or find anything in the chapter telling us not to go and do likewise.

In fact you and I both know that Matt 28 says we are to go into the world "and teach all that I have commanded you" -- all of Christ's teaching.

You can't oppose the text then argue that I am at fault for accepting it as if that makes sense.

The Liturgist said:
For example, it would be a terrible idea to try to heal someone from blindness by putting dirt made into mud with our saliva in their eyes

Tell Jesus that.

The Liturgist said:
, as our Lord did; he could do this,

yep.

And His disciples , healed the sick, raised the dead, cleansed the lepers etc.

you need a point here.

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

Lukaris said:
There were dozens of disputed writings in the early church. Some were faithfully sound and others not. The New Testament was understandably the most debated. To be scripture, the writings had to be faithful and from an apostle. Some writings that were faithfully sound were rejected as scripture but aspects of them became part of tradition.

A major example, I believe, is the Epistle of Barnabas which was debated as being from Barnabas the evangelist friend of Paul. There were some writings that would hijack an apostle’s name and preach deception.

True.

2 Thess 2:1-4 Paul writes as one very concerned that Christians "Might get a letter as if from us saying that the Day of the Lord has come"

Yep - lots of fake stuff floating around. Yet they knew that Paul was writing scripture as Peter points out. They did not wait a few centuries to read the NT letters.

Jipsah · May 17, 2024

BobRyan said:
BobRyan said:

This thread is not focused on "ignoring details"

No, it's foucused on thumping Catholics. THe problem is that your lot has the same problem you decry in the RCC, but that you fail to admit exists at all. And fact is that most people don't know enough about SDA arcania call you on it.

Let's look at what has been described as "one of the pillars of Adventist belief.

This from Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary, 2005:

"The books of record in heaven, in which the names and the deeds of men are registered, are to determine the decisions of the judgment." "As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. Beginning with those who first lived upon the earth, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living. Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated."[17]

"The Judgment will show those who are authentic believers in God from those who are not. "All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life."
On the other hand:
"When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God's remembrance." "Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God."[17]

BobRyan said:
even Catholic scholars themselves admit that the Marian doctrines have no basis in scripture and have no historicity in the first century Christian church.

Right. They make no secret of, and offer no apologies for, their belief that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven is drawn from Holy Tradition.

On the other hand, SDAs proclaim that they're sola Scriptura, while this "pillar of Adventist beliefs" is nowhere described in Scripture, and has no basis in holy tradition. It appears to be entirely the product of a vision experienced by Ellen White, the prophet of Seventh Day Adventism. While no Adventist source that I know of will admit this fact, I wager that we'll wait in vain to see any Scripture that reveals any such thing.

Especially this part:
His ascension, He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and, began His intercessory ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry

So once again, physician, heal thyself.

BobRyan said:
I am fine with rejecting doctrine that even the Catholic church admits is not in the Bible

I'm fine with rejecting SDA doctrine that they won't admit isn't in the Bible.

BobRyan said:
and has no historicity in the first century church.

aas opposed to yours that didn't exist until the 19th century.

BobRyan said:
It does not bother me to reject something in that category.

Yeah, I reject IJ, too, as I do most other SDA doctrines. (Although we do coincidentally share some beliefs.)

BobRyan said:
But if one reads Daniel 7 they see a pre-advent judgment based out of the things written in books ("investigative" for those not opposed to that word, but pick any word you like).

That's nice.. Kind of a "Hey, look over there!" technique there, right?

BobRyan said:
So when the group promoting a given doctrine says - we don't find this in the Bible and it has no historicity in the first century authors - well I think it is worth mentioning.

And again, when the pot is so intent in calling the kettle black, it has to make one wonder why. To distract from the "crime" you so vehemently condemn in others?

BobRyan said:
You might think that such a thing is what all churches do - but I beg to differ.

The RCs will admit their sources. The SDA won't. Such wow.

BobRyan said:
IN any case - even though you are doing it in a somewhat backhanded way

Backhanded? I thought I was pretty clear. on my position. If not, I hope this post has clarified it.

BobRyan said:
- you appear to agree that your denomination

My denomination takes no position on the Assumption of the Virgin. We're free to believe it or not, as conscience leads us. I'm Anglo-Catholic, you see. Anglican. English Catholics.

Do I personally believe it? IDK. It wouldn't be unprecedented, and it would seem to me that The Godbearer would be a really good candidate for assumption,but I'm sticking with an honest engineer's "I don't know" which is the proper way to respond to a dearth of actual data.

BobRyan said:
thanks for the agreement.

<ROFL> Better read it again, Bob.

Jipsah · May 17, 2024

BobRyan said:
BobRyan said:
"they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF the things taught by the Apostle Paul WERE So" Acts 17:11 -- which apparently some people think is not in the Bible.

Nah, they just don't like the way you use it.

BobRyan said:
Is it your claim that we should delete all the NT that is not followed by "go and do likewise"??? Seriously!!

How about the part of the NT where the Church was told to keep the Sabbath? <Grin>

BobRyan said:
Acts 17:11 they are blessed and praised by the author of Acts for doing what they did -- instead of "oh that is bad but we are not going to mention it".

Where would they have found Investigative Judgement?

BobRyan said:
You can't oppose the text then argue that I am at fault for accepting it as if that makes sense.

Except you do only when it suits you.

BobRyan said:
Tell Jesus that.

While we're there, you can scold Him for picking grain on the Sabbath.

BobRyan said:
and His disciples , healed the sick, raised the dead, cleansed the lepers etc. you need a point here.

Maybe he could find one to share with you.

Jipsah · May 17, 2024

BobRyan said:
I did not say that Catholics don't "believe" the doctrine - I said their own scholarship points out that they believe it no matter that they have no source for it in scripture and no historicity for it in the first century authors.

They believe it based on Holy Tradition. The same reason SDAs accept the Canon of Scripture (and some adjunct stuff, wink wink)

BobRyan said:
My interest is in logic and reason.

Nah, your interest is in Catholic bashing. The hilarious part is that SDAs are as much, if not more, guilty of your accusations as is the RCC. They have beliefs based on tradition, you have "pillars of Adventism" based on the pensees of Ellen White. Neither is Biblical That what makes your ranting against Catholics so comical.

BobRyan said:
Again you shoot your argument in the foot trying to have it both ways.

Unlike your "my unScriptural beliefs are better than your Unscriptural beliefs!" silliness, right?

BobRyan said:
Either you agree that the lack of Bible support and historicity in the NT first century sources is a problem or you imagine that doctrine should not be established in scripture and historicity in the first century.

Sorry Bob, but you're stuck behnd that same rock. The "pillar of Adventism" just ain't in the Bible.

BobRyan said:
You are trying to have it "both ways"

Interesting charge, since SDA are guilty of the same "crime" of which they accuse the RCCs. Hypocrisy much?

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

BobRyan said:

I did not say that Catholics don't "believe" the doctrine - I said their own scholarship points out that they believe it no matter that they have no source for it in scripture and no historicity for it in the first century authors.

Jipsah said:
They believe it based on Holy Tradition.

sounds like we are saying the same thing. But your own scholar also points out that it is not a tradition that goes back to the first century in terms of its historicity.

Jipsah said:
The same reason SDAs accept the Canon of Scripture

nope - we accept the 66 books of scripture based on a lot of evidence from the first century and in the NT text itself.

In any case your argument amounts to "if you agree with all Christians on Earth and accept the 27 books of the NT as scripture then you might as well make stuff up for any doctrine you wish, no historicity, no scripture for it".

Have you seriously thought your own argument through?

You and I both know that nobody in the first century was saying "We don't know what scripture is ...we will just have to wait for a few centuries to find out".

Jipsah said:
Nah, your interest is in Catholic bashing. The hilarious part is that SDAs are as much, if not more, guilty of your accusations as is the RCC.

The hilarious part is you're posting as if my acceptance of what your own Catholic scholar said in the OP is "catholic bashing".

Have you really thought that through???

Jipsah said:
They have beliefs based on tradition, you have "pillars of Adventism"

We have the 28 fundamental beliefs which we say come from Bible teaching alone -- and have historicity in the NT, and we DO NOT go around making the case that those doctrines "do not come from the Bible - but please believe them anyway".

My suspicion is that you know this is true almost as much as I do.

Jipsah said:
Unlike your "my unScriptural beliefs are better than your Unscriptural beliefs!" silliness, right?

It would be silly if I were saying that -- are you expressing wishful thinking at this point.

BobRyan · May 17, 2024

Jipsah said:
No, it's foucused on thumping Catholics.

The idea that affirming the Catholic Scholar quoted in the OP on the historicity (or lack thereof) of Marian doctrine and his statement that they do not come from scripture - is "thumping Catholics" needs a bit more thought.

Jipsah said:
And fact is that most people don't know enough about SDA

Christianity Today refers to the SDA denomination as the fifth largest (and fastest growing) Christian denomination in the world.
You need to get out more.

Jipsah said:
Let's look at what has been described as "one of the pillars of Adventist belief.

This from Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary, 2005:

"The books of record in heaven

try selecting one of our belief statements --

What do Seventh-day Adventists Believe?

The official description of Seventh-day Adventists’ interpretation and practice of the major themes in Scripture, organized into 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

www.adventist.org

BTW since I start off affirming the position the Catholic scholar quoted in the OP on the lack of historicity and lack of Bible support for Marian doctrines -- is it your goal to get me to oppose Catholic scholars on the subject? Are you at war with Catholic scholars on the subject of the historicity of Marian doctrine??

Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

Orthodox Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Jesus is the only Way

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Jesus is the only Way

Unapologetic Apologist

Blood Drinker

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Junior Member

Junior Member

Similar threads