SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer. - Page 4

Newbie2 · #46 Jan 19, '08, 7:53 am

I agree with an earlier post that surmised the the OP wasn't really all that interested in the answers...as evidenced by the lack of follow-up and discussion.

In other forums, such posters are termed "trolls", but there's got to be a more charitable way of referring to posters that just want to cause a calamity.

Tomster · #47 Jan 19, '08, 8:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newbie2

I agree with an earlier post that surmised the the OP wasn't really all that interested in the answers...as evidenced by the lack of follow-up and discussion.

In other forums, such posters are termed "trolls", but there's got to be a more charitable way of referring to posters that just want to cause a calamity.

"You don't really expect to get answers to your questions do you?" - Old Scholar, post # 1 on this thread.

Old Scholar · #48 Jan 19, '08, 8:32 am

Wow!

So far I can count 21 different posters responding to my questions. That's great, but I need time just to read them all, much less answer them. I will answer them all, given enough time, but I didn't expect the entire forum to hit me all at once. I still have posts on other threads to answer as I had to take a 10 day trip out of state away from my computer, but I will eventually answer them all.

I do not sit at my computer all day—I actually have a life, so if you are patient, I will certainly respond. I am very anxious to read each and every one of the replies. However, I do not want to respond to any who are not honestly giving me their opinion but are simply trying to trash me. My mission is to learn and perhaps give a little information some may not know.

As I have stated on this forum before,I believe this is the best way to learn—else I would simply keep reading...But seriously, how often do we get to really discuss religion in person—hence the forums.???

Pwrlftr · #49 Jan 19, '08, 8:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by guanophore

The priniciple of development is based on the fact that people are sometimes slow to understand things. However, the Divine Deposit of Faith does not change.

Jude 3
he faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ.

On the contrary, this is exactly the case.

Okay, please show me any first or second century writer who wrote of the assumption.

VociMike · #50 Jan 19, '08, 8:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pwrlftr

Okay, please show me any first or second century writer who wrote of the assumption.

I'm sure you know that arguing from lack of evidence, especially lack of written evidence from 2000 years ago, proves nothing.

But, to turn your question around, please show where the Church ever declared the Assumption to be false. Surely, if it sprang forth one day as a new heresy, the Church would have denounced it, and continued to denounce it. So produce such denouncement, if you can.

Pwrlftr · #51 Jan 19, '08, 9:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by VociMike

Then you must also hold that Trent was the point at which the Catholic Church added the 4 Gospels to the canon. Which leaves your whole argument looking rather ridiculous.

Go back and re-read my post. I simply explained why some use Trent as the point at which your church added the deutero's. There was no "argument".

The point which you either missed or I didn't do well enough in explaining is that if God inspired only "X" number of books and your church recognizes as scripture "X+7" books....your church added 7 books.

Pwrlftr · #52 Jan 19, '08, 9:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by VociMike

I'm sure you know that arguing from lack of evidence, especially lack of written evidence from 2000 years ago, proves nothing.

But, to turn your question around, please show where the Church ever declared the Assumption to be false. Surely, if it sprang forth one day as a new heresy, the Church would have denounced it, and continued to denounce it. So produce such denouncement, if you can.

The other poster seems to believe that all your church's various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can't. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide "proof" of this, post it. If you can't, which you apparently can't judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

Tomster · #53 Jan 19, '08, 9:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pwrlftr

The other poster seems to believe that all your church's various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can't. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide "proof" of this, post it. If you can't, which you apparently can't judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Pwrlftr · #54 Jan 19, '08, 9:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomster

www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

I've read a lot of Catholic links that end up not proving anything. Can you post what you consider your main point to be?

VociMike · #55 Jan 19, '08, 9:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pwrlftr

Go back and re-read my post. I simply explained why some use Trent as the point at which your church added the deutero's. There was no "argument".

And I simply explained why such logic, whoever uses it, doesn't hold up. If one says that Trent added the deuterocanonicals, then one must also say that Trent added the 4 Gospels (and every other book).

Quote:

The point which you either missed or I didn't do well enough in explaining is that if God inspired only "X" number of books and your church recognizes as scripture "X+7" books....your church added 7 books.

And who is qualified to say which books are inspired by God?

Obviously we see the issue differently: If God inspired "X" number of books and your tradition recognizes as scripture "X-7" books....your tradition removed 7 books.

Tomster · #56 Jan 19, '08, 9:20 am

The answer to your question in post # 52.

VociMike · #57 Jan 19, '08, 9:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pwrlftr

The other poster seems to believe that all your church's various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can't. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide "proof" of this, post it. If you can't, which you apparently can't judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

Lack of Church condemnation of a teaching, when it first appears in the surviving written record, is proof that the teaching existed before that time, and by extension (applying the same argument incrementally), all the way back to the time of the Apostles.

Pwrlftr · #58 Jan 19, '08, 9:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomster

The answer to your question in post # 52.

I've read the article at newadvent.org and didn't see the proof that you apparently think is there. Please tell me what proof do you have that the assumption was taught in the first century. I'd rather not re-read an article that I've already reviewed.

Pwrlftr · #59 Jan 19, '08, 9:25 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by VociMike

Lack of Church condemnation of a teaching, when it first appears in the surviving written record, is proof that the teaching existed before that time, and by extension (applying the same argument incrementally), all the way back to the time of the Apostles.

Okay, other than presenting a "lack of proof" as evidence, do you have anything else....slightly more concrete?

Tomster · #60 Jan 19, '08, 9:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pwrlftr

I've read the article at newadvent.org and didn't see the proof that you apparently think is there. Please tell me what proof do you have that the assumption was taught in the first century. I'd rather not re-read an article that I've already reviewed.

In order to understand the dogma of the Assumption you must first examine the dogma of Mary the Mother of God.