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

[Jipsah]

IThe idea that all Catholics differ with Raymond Brown's statement about his own denomination as quoted in the OP - is interesting speculation on your part.How are the rest of us supposed to be lead to go along with that speculation??

I'm sorry, what? I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.

Your original complaint was that Catholics can and do base dogmas upon Holy Tradition and not necessarily on Scripture. Pretty much everyone here already knew that, as I'm pretty sure you did as well. You then continued to repeat the strange accusation as though no one had understood it, since they evinced no trace of the shock and outrage you apparently expected. Then I pointed out tht a central dogma of the SDA faith is wholly unsupported by either Scripture or tradition, you have essentially repeated the equivalent of "no it ain't!" while repeating your original complaint against the Catholics, which continued to receive the same "Yeah, and?" response that it so richly deserves.

So anyway, even though it apparently came as a shock to you, Catholics can base dogmas on Holy Tradition. SDAs apparently take a very dim view of that unless they're basing their dogmas on their own traditions, or unless it's the traditional Canon of Scripture, which is also the product of Holy Tradition (even though I infer that you believe that y'all have your own canon that somehow comes from Scripture that just happens coincidentally to be almost identical to the one everyone else uses but with the bits SDA find offensive removed). (This may be the longest run-on sentence since William Faulkner, so sue me.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

The idea that all Catholics differ with Raymond Brown's statement about his own denomination as quoted in the OP - is interesting speculation on your part.

How are the rest of us supposed to be lead to go along with that speculation??

I'm sorry, what? I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.

well then... that explains a lot.

Your original complaint was that Catholics can and do base dogmas upon Holy Tradition and not necessarily on Scripture.

false. I do not start this thread with a complaint.

I started with an observation that what the Catholic scholar quoted in the OP stated as fact regarding certain Marian doctrines - appears to be to also be irrefutable fact.

You then continued to repeat the strange accusation as though no one had understood it, since they evinced no trace of the shock and outrage you apparently expected.

It appears you are discussing something "With yourself" - please join this conversation.

Then I pointed out tht a central dogma of the SDA faith is wholly unsupported by either Scripture or tradition

So then a thread was started as per your request showing the very case that is made from scripture for that doctrine - and you refuse "to look" possibly because you knew that the comparison you were attempting would not hold up at all.

How is this "news"??

So anyway, even though it apparently came as a shock to you, Catholics can base dogmas on Holy Tradition.'

Which is exactly the point made by the Catholic scholar in the OP of this thread - which you are so insistent on complaining about.
And is exactly the point in his statement where I stated agreement in that I too agree that this is what his denomination is doing.

 

[The Liturgist]

Speaking of the Immaculate Conception, the Cathedral in Washington DC was named after Mary under the Title of Immaculate Conception 1846 before the excathra proclamation 1847. So to all those who claim the Pope himself decided this, go read up on history.

Indeed, the idea that these doctrines did not exist before 1846 and 1954 is ludicrous. We see the idea of the Immaculate Conception in the late first millennium early Scholastic theology in the Western Church, and I suspect St. Augustine himself had an idea along those lines, since he is known to

Someone posted a quote like this on a similar thread recently - quoting Raymond Brown.

Raymond E. Brown:

" Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information.​

​

There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles;"​

Now I will continue the quote with parenthetical inserts - mine.

Raymond Brown continued:

"it is based on the Church’s insight (inference?, suggestion?) that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well."​

(i.e. the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected the origin/birth of his mother)​

​

"Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight (inference, suggestion) about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.​

​

==========================
The above is a statement from Raymond (that I DO agree with in many respects) is clear and concise.

We can anticipate that those opposing his stated view will surely try to dismiss this statement that DOES exist by imagine a negating-context for it that DOES NOT not exist.

==============
"In 1881 the Paulists established The Columbus Press in New York City. In 1913 The Columbus Press became the Paulist Press. It published books which explained the teachings of the Catholic faith"
===============
Isn't it interesting that the very key points where non Catholics differ with Catholic Marian doctrine - are the ones that Catholic scholars such as Brown - admit are not found in the Bible, and have no historicity in origin as if NT saints saw or wrote about such things?

In other words - logically - one must first BE a member of the Catholic church to then believe certain doctrines that have no source in the NT text or historic record from reliable first century sources.

===================
Raymond Brown --

Raymond E. Brown - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"An American Sulpician priest and prominent biblical scholar. He was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote studies on the birth and death of Jesus.

"Brown was professor emeritus at Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York City, where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.["

"Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and again in 1996. He was the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City" (IE not considered a heretic by the Catholic Church - for those who were trying to grasp that sort of straw)

Hey there, I need to know in what format you have this book by Dr. Brown, and what you got it from.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York (shortened to UTS or Union) is a private ecumenical liberal Christian seminary[4] in Morningside Heights, Manhattan, affiliated with Columbia University. Columbia University lists UTS among its affiliate schools, alongside with Barnard College and Teachers College. Since 1928, the seminary has served as Columbia's constituent faculty of theology.[5] In 1964, UTS also established an affiliation with the neighboring Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Despite its affiliation with Columbia University, UTS is an independent institution with its own administration and Board of Trustees. UTS confers the following degrees: Master of Divinity (MDiv), Master of Divinity & Social Work dual degree (MDSW), Master of Arts in religion (MAR), Master of Arts in Social Justice (MASJ), Master of Sacred Theology (STM), Doctor of Ministry (DMin), and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).​

​

"UTS is the oldest independent seminary in the United States.​

Catholic scholars are found at a number of Universities and colleges.

"He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.["

Thank you for recognizing that UTS is a liberal Protestant seminary and not a Catholic seminary.

"Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and again in 1996.

I never said he wasn't.

And the "reference" for Brown's statement is in fact a Catholic source

Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

==============
"In 1881 the Paulists established The Columbus Press in New York City. In 1913 The Columbus Press became the Paulist Press. It published books which explained the teachings of the Catholic faith"

I attended a Paulist parish in Minneapolis for years. They finally gave up the parish because the Paulist priests are not faring very well. The population of the Paulists is declining rapidly as great old priests in the mold of Isaac Hecker simply are not being replaced. They decided staffing St Paul's in NYC, as in 'Out at St. Paul's' was critically more important to them than staffing other parishes. Their book publishing is not very successful either, as most Catholics simply don't buy a lot of 'woke' books. I haven't bought a thing from them in 15 years. They were good once, a long time ago.

Now what is "odd" is that we have posts on this thread defending Brown to their last breath and the idea that tradition, not scripture and not historicity in first century sources - is the real key to belief just as Brown states for the doctrines about Mary.

And then a flip flop by some of the same posters arguing that affirming Brown is an attack on Catholic teaching.

And then your latest efforts to unlink Brown altogether from the Catholic church.

And then there's you, who likely never heard of him before you saw a quote you thought you could milk. Just to clue you in, here is an article by Msgr. George A. Kelley: Library : A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory

The article is just an FYI. I'm not eager to argue about it with you. So take it or leave it. I've got the book he authored and mentioned in the article on my bookshelf as well.

That is a lot of having-it-both-ways squirming ... I did not expect that.

I state point blank in the OP that Brown is a Catholic scholar (not a non-Catholic one) as even you seem to begrudgingly admit, and that I agree with his statement about the lack of scripture support , and the lack of reliable first century historicity for certain marian doctrines which he identifies in his statement.

He WAS a Catholic scholar. Hopefully his scholarship has improved now that he has passed on and has access to all of the primary sources including Mary herself.

He is controversial, or I should say he was controversial back in the 1970's and 1980's. He's now mostly irrelevant to Catholics. As I said, the liberals are way beyond him and the conservatives have far better material.

It is presented for the fact of the statement and as an example where I agree with some of the statements that Catholic scholars such as Brown make.

If he floats your boat, fine.

Essentially Catholic teaching comes from a mix of Scripture and Tradition. Just because it isn't spelled out in Scripture doesn't make it wrong. Unlike your Investigative Judgement, which you claim is Scriptural but it isn't, we don't have to claim everything is in Scripture alone. So, If Raymond E. Brown were correct in saying this or that isn't mentioned in Scripture, It's no earthquake. Actually if you read the conclusion of the chapter about Mary you might just get an idea of what he was talking about vis a vis Wolfhart Pannenberg. But that would involve more than quote mining.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hey there, I need to know in what format you have this book by Dr. Brown, and what you got it from.

Good questions.

 

[Jipsah]

BobRyan said:
The idea that all Catholics differ with Raymond Brown's statement about his own denomination as quoted in the OP - is interesting speculation on your part.

I don't think anyone has said any such thing, interesting or otherwise. What led you to that interesting conclusion?

How are the rest of us supposed to be lead to go along with that speculation??

What speculation?

well then... that explains a lot.

Whatever that was.

false. I do not start this thread with a complaint.

Sure read like one.

I started with an observation that what the Catholic scholar quoted in the OP stated as fact regarding certain Marian doctrines - appears to be to also be irrefutable fact.

That they're based on Tradition rather than Scripture? No one has said otherwise. You appear to be responding to objections that no one raisded.

It appears you are discussing something "With yourself"

Which suggests that you haven't been able to understand anythingt I've been saying. I rather suspected as much.

- please join this conversation.

The real one, or the one reckon should be taking place?

So then a thread was started as per your request

I made no such request. I challenged you to support your position here. You chose to do it, assuming you have, elsewhere.

showing the very case that is made from scripture for that doctrine

The one you offered here was extraordinarily thin; that your dogma of Invesitgative Judgement was based on the mention of judgement and opened books in Daniel, and thus the dogma is Scriptural. Nemmind that it appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with how your dogma is described by your own sources (which I have now posted twice without eliciting any comment from you.)

- and you refuse "to look"

Looked; and lacking SDA presuppositions, saw nothing that supported your doctrine. I did note that the original concept of Investigative Judgement came in a vision experienced by Ellen White, who tied it to Daniel and other Scriptures after the fact.

possibly because you knew that the comparison you were attempting would not hold up at all.

Not to a dyed-in-the-wool SDA, of course not! But the fact remains that the this Pillar of Adventism isn't based on Scripture.. Your "sola scriptura" claim is a sham. But you refuse to admit it. Catholics don't care tuppence for sola scriptura, and make no pretence of doing so. Their doctrine isn't by any means always based on Scripture; it's sometimes based on Holy Tradition. That fact is common knowledge, and no one sees any need to deny it.

So you're in the curious position of accusing the Catholics which they acknowledge to be true, while your folks, who do the very thing which you find objection in the Cartholics,but staunchly refuse to admit it. I think that's what in the popular vernacular is called "gaslighting".

And is exactly the point in his statement where I stated agreement in that I too agree that this is what his denomination is doing.

Which, again, is possibly the worst kept secret in history. No, Catholics aren't sola scriptura. They make no claim to be, and never have. You may believe they ought to be, but you're unlikely to prsuade them to change. All the while, SDAs clsaim to be sola scriptura, but in fact are not. There, I think that sums it up in quote nicely.

(This is where you post Father Brown's quotes again, accompanied by obligatory expressions of disapproval.)

 

[BobRyan]

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.

because at that point, there was no Bible.

So your argument is "with the text"??? or you simply want to point out that we have even more Bible, more scripture now to do that same Acts 17:11 test of "study the scriptures to see IF those things are so"??

 

[BobRyan]

My point being is that you give a pass to your own beliefs that are not explicitly in the Bible even though you are Bible-only. Yet you are finding fault with those who never claimed to be Bible-only because they believe truths that are not explicitly in the Bible

This thread is primarily about me affirming the Catholic Scholar's statement about what his own denomination is doing in the case of certain marian doctrines that he admits - having no historicity in the first century church, and not found in the NT text.

 

[BobRyan]

In the following example (where some would have it "both-ways" ) Brown is pristine according to the post and the implication is that I am
(which if that is the view - then we should then accept his statement in the OP and be happy)

I met Raymond E. Brown. Talked with him. Read almost every book he ever wrote. I’ve got a copy of his PhD thesis. He was very careful in his words and his positions. It’s mostly the people not careful enough in reading him that try to make him say what he would never have intended to say. I am not a disciple of Raymond E. Brown by any means but I find the use of him in this thread to be specious silliness.

Notice the hint of "you must be bad if you claim Brown said anything that would not flatter my preference..."??

===================================================
Next we watch as the same poster - tosses Brown under a bus.

..(Pause for interruption in my day.. returns after this)

Resuming...

Both Brown And the Independent University Brown was working with get tossed in this next example...

You do know that UTS is not a Catholic institution, but a Protestant one? So his being a professor there says zero about his particular Catholic creds. There is another famous (somewhat infamous) Catholic, Charles Curran, who teaches at Southern Methodist University, whose credentials to teach at any Catholic institution have been removed. Because he teaches at a Protestant institution itself says zero about his particular Catholic creds,

Changing UTS from an Independent university to a Protestant Institution and then apparently dissing all Catholic scholars at any university that is not Catholic -- "apparently"

which he no longer has in this case. I have no evidence that Brown's credentials were ever removed, as was the case with Curran.

But doubt being planted all the same in your post about Brown.

You cite Raymond E. Brown as if we should all fall down on our knees and worship him or something. Few Catholics ever did.

Now is that your version of "kicking to the curb" your same pristine scholar in your prior post???

I had a brief moment of temptation in that regard until I heard him speak in the early 1980's. Since then I have been able to see him as a rebel, a smart one, stepping ever so close to the lines in pushing for higher criticism.

A smart rebel that never said anything amiss and if one claims he did say something amiss - they must be engaged in "a species of silliness" as in you claimed in your first post above???

Your "having it both ways" must be a lot of fun for you. Oh well ... enjoy.

If you think you align with him, maybe on one issue

Oh how interesting. You finally admit to my OP point - that I am actually agreeing with Brown on one of his statements, rather than working to trash him - even though he is a Catholic scholar not an SDA one.

Interesting you would bring yourself to admit to that obvious detail in the OP.

Now back to your trashing him

He is passe in Catholic circles these days. The more liberal folks have moved beyond him and left him behind in the dust.

Now this is interesting - his book dealing with the historicity of Marian doctrine (very specific Marian doctrine as specified in Brown's own statement in the OP - gets recast as "historicity of Mary"

He is as irrelevant on this matter of the historicity of Mary

Brown is not quoted as saying 'There is no historicity for Mary in the first century' -- in the OP
NOR is brown quoted as saying "there is no basis for the person of Mary found in scripture" in that OP

Yet you seem to be doing a "switch" to "historicty of Mary" .. how "instructive"

If you want a slightly more relevant book about Mary you might try 'Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Catholic Scholars' edited by the same Raymond E. Brown, Karl Donfried, Joseph Fitzmyer, and John Reuman. (1978) Fortress Press, Philadelphia PA. Better yet 'Redemptoris Mater' by pope John Paul II. Redemptoris Mater (25 March 1987) | John Paul II

Actually if you want to use your list of Protestant Scholars to refute the findings of Brown (and all the Protestant Scholars that agree with Brown's observation regarding the specific doctrines he lists having no historicity in the first century NT church and not found in scripture) you should pick one or two of his selected Marian teachings and show how your preferred Protestant scholars are affirming the "historicity" of something he names - such as the Marian teaching on Assumption as coming from reliable first century sources.

You know, address the facts of his claim rather than ignoring them.

Even when having it "both ways" the facts should come into consideration regarding his claims at some point in your post.

Have you not already responded to this particular post of mine multiple times? Are we in some sort of echo chamber?

Works better if you read the entire post before responding.

 

[concretecamper]

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.

So your argument is "with the text"??? or you simply want to point out that we have even more Bible, more scripture now to do that same Acts 17:11 test of "study the scriptures to see IF those things are so"??

does everything have to be an argument with you? My only point is that Acts 17:11 can't be referring to the Bible. So to use it as a proof of SS is ridiculous.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In the following example (where some would have it "both-ways" ) Brown is pristine, we should then accept his statement in the OP and be happy


Next we watch as the same poster - tosses Brown under a bus.

Have you not already responded to this particular post of mine multiple times? Are we in some sort of echo chamber? This is all about you thinking you have 'found something' with which to attack the Catholic Church. I get it. You are SDA. Attacking the Catholic Church is just what you do. But you still have never bothered to tell us whether you read the whole chapter from where somebody lifted that quote you copied. Do you know what the chapter says? Tell us. Please. Or just tell us you haven't a clue what the whole chapter says. Quit trying to hide that information about how much you know or don't know about what you are quoting.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This thread is primarily about me affirming the Catholic Scholar's statement about what his own denomination is doing in the case of certain marian doctrines that he admits - having no historicity in the first century church, and not found in the NT text.

How about the first century historicity of the investigative judgement? And how it isn't found in the New Testament? It IS relevant to your case here. It's about the sources of doctrine. You claim it's Scripture alone. But you don't in practice follow that. Nobody actually does, so this isn't picking on you and the SDA. If you can't explore how your own SDA adopts doctrines from tradition, albeit 19th century tradition, then your whole thread is just another anti-Catholic screed.

 

[BobRyan]

How about the first century historicity of the investigative judgement? And how it isn't found in the New Testament? It IS relevant to your case here. It's about the sources of doctrine. You claim it's Scripture alone. But you don't in practice follow that. Nobody actually does,

It appears you have not been reading the posts on this thread.

Jipsah already tried that idea of "not found in scripture" and got debunked - because I agreed to his request/test/challenge and dedicated an entire thread to his speculative accusation. It shows that his entire speculation was totally without substance.

Since you want to experience the same response - then thanks to Jipsah - your thread is already going here

Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

What do Seventh-day Adventists Believe? lists the actual voted beliefs of the denomination Belief #24 states our position on the judgment - as noted here #7 The Investigative Judgment doctrine that Adventists teach is found in places like Dan 7 and Rom 2. It declares that before the return...

www.christianforums.com

And this has been pointed out multiple times on this thread (that apparently you are not reading all that closely). All the scripture you claim - does not exist - sitting right there for you to "not see" along with Jipsah.

ILLUSTRATION:

It's one thing to claim that I don't agree with Baptist OSAS doctrines as I look at the texts they read where they find support for it... it is totally silly and absurd on the other hand to claim those texts do not exist or that Baptist are not basing their position sola scriptura. That second idea could never be taken seriously - and we all know it.​

If you can't explore how your own SDA adopts doctrines from tradition, albeit 19th century tradition, then your whole thread is just another anti-Catholic screed.

"sounds" impressive until we notice the "elephant in the living room" -- i.e. thread posted multiple times here, showing the very sola scriptura case you claim does not exist, the very one that is the only one we use , and that results in millions agreeing with it and joining the church.

So other than the facts do support that we are making a sola-scriptura case for the judgment -- your suggestion would make sense. If it were true that we are doing the very same thing Raymond Brown says the Catholics are doing in the case of certain Marian doctrines - then it would make sense to watch us also say "yep it is true , this doctrine is not in scripture - but it is our tradition to think of it as being true anyway"

Then -- in that fictional scenario - it would make sense to claim they are two of the same sorts of thing.

But in the real world - we have this

Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

What do Seventh-day Adventists Believe? lists the actual voted beliefs of the denomination Belief #24 states our position on the judgment - as noted here #7 The Investigative Judgment doctrine that Adventists teach is found in places like Dan 7 and Rom 2. It declares that before the return...

www.christianforums.com

I look forward to the same 'cricketts'... 'cricketts' that Jipsah responds with after climbing out on that limb.

(Kinda reminds me of your posts on this thread saying that the reference to Raymond's stateement does not exist in the OP)

 

[BobRyan]

Have you not already responded to this particular post of mine multiple times? Are we in some sort of echo chamber?

#109

Clearly you have not read that post all the way through. ... You are shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[chevyontheriver]

#109

Clearly you have not read that post all the way through. ... You are shooting yourself in the foot.

I responded to a much shorter version of your post, the one before the "..(Pause for interruption in my day.. returns after this)"

I backquoted the entire post of yours as it was when I read it and responded to it. You 'moved the goalposts' as it were. And then, I'm beginning to think now it's typical of you, you added a snide remark.

I'm beginning to think interacting with you at all is a mistake. You don't seem civil enough to carry on a thoughtful conversation where both of us could learn something.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It appears you have not been reading the posts on this thread.

Jipsah already tried that idea and got debunked - because I gave him his request of creating a thread on that very point and showing that his entire speculation was totally without substance.

Since you want to experience the same response - then thanks to Jipsah - your thread is already going here

Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

What do Seventh-day Adventists Believe? lists the actual voted beliefs of the denomination Belief #24 states our position on the judgment - as noted here #7 The Investigative Judgment doctrine that Adventists teach is found in places like Dan 7 and Rom 2. It declares that before the return...

www.christianforums.com

And this has been pointed out multiple times on this thread (that apparently you are not reading all that closely). All the scripture you claim - does not exist - sitting right there for you to "not see" along with Jipsah.

ILLUSTRATION:

It's one thing to claim that I don't agree with Baptist OSAS doctrines as I look at the texts they read where they find support for it... it is totally silly and absurd on the other hand to claim those texts do not exist or that Baptist are not basing their position sola scriptura. That second idea could never be taken seriously - and we all know it.​

"sounds" impressive until we notice that "elephant in the living room" thread posted multiple times, showing the very sola scriptura case you claim does not exist, the very one that is the only one we use , and that results in millions agreeing with it and joining the church.

Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

What do Seventh-day Adventists Believe? lists the actual voted beliefs of the denomination Belief #24 states our position on the judgment - as noted here #7 The Investigative Judgment doctrine that Adventists teach is found in places like Dan 7 and Rom 2. It declares that before the return...

www.christianforums.com

I look forward to the same 'cricketts'... 'cricketts' that Jipsah responds with after climbing out on that limb.

(Kinda reminds me of your posts on this thread saying that the reference to Raymond's stateement does not exist in the OP)

How is it that ONLY the SDA believe such stuff and ONLY the SDA out of all the groups that claim to follow Sola Scriptura has ever come up with an investigative judgement? IF it were true don't you think that just possibly someone else using Sola Scriptura would have discovered it. IF it were true don't you think it would be so manifest in Tradition that the Catholics and the Orthodox would have believed it all along.

How can you believe such stuff. "In 1844 ...." Somehow that is in Scripture? And you complain that Catholics (and Orthodox, and Copts, and traditional Anglicans) believe something not found in Scripture. I'm sorry. That's too rich for me how a Sola Scriptura argument for a 19th century belief can be sound AND on the other hand any Catholic beliefs about Mary are so much hoo-haw because they aren't spelled out in Scripture. Your other thread is basically you pontificating on the SDA party line. That only SDA members seem to be able to appreciate.

Is there anything else that you haven't responded to more than once that you need to say? I'm thinking it has been a big waste of time. And since you carefully avoided replying whether you had read chapter five of 'Crises Facing the Church' I have to conclude you only lifted a quote from someone else and have not a clue what RE Brown was actually even getting at vis a vis Wolfhart Pannenberg. That's OK. I can't force you to think beyond your natural limits.

 

[BobRyan]

does everything have to be an argument with you?

nope. State a fact... we can then both agree to it.

My only point is that Acts 17:11 can't be referring to the Bible.

the problem is the text explicitly SAYS it is referring to scripture and the topic we are testing is "is sola-scriptura testing in the Bible"?

There is no way to escape the fact that Acts 17:11 "They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- hammers that sola-scriptura nail right on the heard.

When you "switch terms" to "Bible" (as we would all be confused at that point) you aren't really getting out of it the way you suppose. The fact that more scripture would be written in the future does not negate/dismiss Acts 17:11 rather it shows that AT EVERY STAGE the "sola scriptura" test was VALID.

So to use it as a proof of SS is ridiculous.

As I just demonstrated - that conclusion lacks logical support.

 

[Jipsah]

This thread is primarily about me affirming the Catholic Scholar's statement about what his own denomination is doing in the case of certain marian doctrines that he admits - having no historicity in the first century church, and not found in the NT text.

So we’ve heard. And the answer seems to be, “So?” But maybe you can get one of your coreligionists to pop in and attest to how shocked and appalled he is that them bad Catholics have a dogma that wasn’t thunk up by Ellen White.

 

[BobRyan]

... So other than the fact that Bible details presented do support that we are making a sola-scriptura case for the judgment -- your suggestion would make sense. If it were true that we are doing the very same thing Raymond Brown says the Catholics are doing in the case of certain Marian doctrines - then it would make sense to watch us also say "yep it is true , this doctrine is not in scripture - but it is our tradition to think of it as being true anyway"

Then -- in that fictional scenario - it would make sense to claim they are two of the same sorts of thing.

But in the real world - we have this

Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

What do Seventh-day Adventists Believe? lists the actual voted beliefs of the denomination Belief #24 states our position on the judgment - as noted here #7 The Investigative Judgment doctrine that Adventists teach is found in places like Dan 7 and Rom 2. It declares that before the return...

www.christianforums.com

I look forward to the same 'cricketts'... 'cricketts' that Jipsah responds with after climbing out on that limb.

(Kinda reminds me of your posts on this thread saying that the reference to Raymond's statement does not exist in the OP)

How is it that ONLY the SDA believe such stuff and ONLY the SDA out of all the groups that claim to follow Sola Scriptura has ever come up with an investigative judgement? IF it were true don't you think that just possibly someone else using Sola Scriptura would have discovered it.

You have switched from "you are not making a case from scripture just like the Catholic church scholar in the OP says they are doing in certain cases"

to this new track "why would one denomination promote something in the Bible - and yet all denominations would not agree?", "Why would the Catholic church at least not agree, if it came from the Bible?"

The protesting-Catholics that created the protestant reformation were do that very thing. They were finding Bible based doctrine, exposing cases where - like Raymond Brown says - there is no Bible basis for certain Catholic doctrine , and then instead of ignoring the problem those protesting-Catholics dropped doctrine that had no foundation in scripture and that in fact was in violation of scripture in their POV just as we see Christ saying in Mark 7:7-13 of his own One True Nation Church started by God at Sinia.

And this feature prevailed EVEN THOUGH not every Protesting-Catholic-Reformer agreed on every single detail about all the fixes/corrections that would be needed to bring Church doctrine back inline with the Bible.

The Catholic Church's "counter reformation" self-corrections ended up being a day-late dollar-short in some regards. But at the reformers pointed out - those small fixes did not go far enough so the counter-reformation did not put an end to Protestant groups.

IF it were true don't you think it would be so manifest in Tradition that the Catholics and the Orthodox would have believed it all along.

Couldn't that same argument have been made by non-Christian Jews against the Christian-Jews leading out in the first century church -- such as the Apostles.

Mark 7:5-13 Jesus said their traditions were in violation of the Word of God.

But the Jews never claimed that about themselves ,, even though Christ's statement was true of them none-the-less.

How can you believe such stuff. "In 1844 ...." Somehow that is in Scripture?

Go to the thread ... read.
(BTW -- AD 27 is not "in the Bible" yet the 69th week points to it, Christ admits it in Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled" -- the very date predicted in Dan 9)

And you complain that Catholics (and Orthodox, and Copts, and traditional Anglicans) believe something not found in Scripture.

No -- this thread is pointing out that in the case of Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown - they admit it.
I agree with Raymond - that this what they are doing.

I'm sorry. That's too rich for me how a Sola Scriptura argument for a 19th century belief can be sound

take time to "read" the thread on the topic. Those scriptures do NOT come from the 19th century.

I don't see how that point is even a little bit confusing.

Your other thread is basically you pontificating on the SDA party line

If you ignore all the scripture referenced there and all the statements showing the compelling case it makes, and then go to great degree of "low-information-reader" mode... you might be able to get to your statement with some level of ability not to see the glaring problem with it. (since we notice you do not reference a single point, do not answer anything, do not prove a thing in the thread you used to claim could-not-exist)

. That only SDA members seem to be able to appreciate.

sadly for that tactic - the fact that we are the fastest growing Christian denomination in the world according to the non-SDA publication "ChristianityToday" -- puts that straw man to rest ... as well.

would you like to grasp for another one?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

This thread is primarily about me affirming the Catholic Scholar's statement about what his own denomination is doing in the case of certain marian doctrines that he admits - having no historicity in the first century church, and not found in the NT text.

So we’ve heard. And the answer seems to be, “So?”

You would think...

But the response quickly went to
"how dare you quote Raymond" and then to
"Raymond never could have really said such a thing.."
to "well ok maybe he did say that but - nobody pays attention to him",
to "affirming Raymond's statement is catholic bashing"
to "well wait a minute aren't you guys also doing the same thing Raymond says the Catholic church is doing?" -
to "yes we do that sort of thing in the Catholic church that is why we don't like the sola-scriptura idea"
... to ...

But maybe you can get one of your coreligionists to pop in

You seem to be shooting your own argument in the foot enough times for all, why would we need more?