You have a tradition that you follow - my OP does not deny that you follow some tradition.
Which apparently you would pretend that you do not. Then again, the prophetic pronouncements of Ellen White may not strictly be considered
traditions, although they are most certainly extra-biblical.
But that is not what this thread is about.
So we've been over. The purpose was to accuse the Roman Catholics of embracing doctrines not found in the Bible. Which, of course, they freely admit, since they honor Holy Tradition. What you're unwilling or unable to admit is that what the SDA counts as one of the "Pillars of Adventism" is a doctrine t
hat does not appear anywhere in Holy Writ.
BobRyan said:
Ok so actual research and published Catholic scholarship ON the very subject (the historicity of Marian doctrine) should be ignored if someone waves their hand away from it? Seriously??
Can SDA belief in the wholly non-scriptural doctrine of "Investigative Judgement" be ignored because they claim that it's supported by Scriptures that say nothing of the kind?
And can going out of your way to find fault with
someone else's doctrines as unscriptural, when you consider an unscriptural doctrine a backbone of your own faith, not be more than a bit hypocritical?
The idea that no one cares that certain doctrines you hold have no historicity in the first century NT church and no basis in scripture sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
Speaking of wishful thnking, do you really expect to sell the idea that IJ is somehow found in Scripture? For crying out loud, man, even
you haven't offered to expound on how Daniel 7 supports your claim by mentioning judgement and books being opened. That looks amazingingly like it was a product of a word search, where the context of those words was wholly ignored! Have
you read Daniel 7?
But WERE it TRUE -- then posts such as yours would be saying something like "I say YES indeed to your OP - THANK you for posting it.
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But the fact is that, as usual, you're badmouthing Catholics, and failed to consider that: while Catholics have no problem at all basing a dogma on Holy Tradition, you lot loudly declare your devotion to sola scriptura. That, while one of the very pillars of your faith is a doctrine that has little or no support in Scripture at all, and appears to have come straight from a revelation from your very own prophet.
Think "glass houses", Bob. Think "motes and beams". Think "physician, heal thyself". Think "hoist on your own petard".
Instead - notice that your almost every post - is a form of complaint.
Seems that this thread began with you complaining about a Roman Catholic dogma that offends SDA sensibilities. Your complaint is duly noted, as is its hypocritical nature.
How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader
I'm sure this thread will persuade multitudes to flee the Catholic Church and run headlong to the SDAs for refuge. Or not. <Laugh
You claim that affirming a well honored Catholic Scholar is to "beat the Catholics"
Nope, he simply noted that the Assumption has no Biblical or 1st Century basis. The belief is based on tradition (we've been over this a time or three, haven't we?), which, for Catholics, Roman and otherwise, can be a perfectly fine basis for a doctrine. You share that belief as touching the Canon of Scripture, which you accept as the Catholics have given it to you, so your objections to other doctrines based on tradition ring pretty hollow. It's all just the same old "them bad Catholics..." that seem to be
another of Adventism's nonscriptural "pillars".
has yet to have an ounce of logic associated with it as to how such an odd idea even comes about.
I'm sure all of the world's roughly 1,350,000,000 (latest figures) Catholics (which for some reason doesn't include the world's 110,000,000 Anglicans) will be desolated to hear that.