Interesting News article

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
We all agree that the Scriptures have authority. We do NOT agree that because Pope So-and-so XII and the Holy Council at Mudwater wrote the Such-and-such canon, then it becomes authoratative.

As long as Catholics are going to agree that the Scriptures hold authority, they must be willing to acknowledge that authority.

But we don't all agree that it is the "sole" authority.

Even if you reject the notion that the Scriptures are the sole authority on matters of faith, the burden is yours to prove your point from the Scriptures to those who DO hold it as their authority.

Why so?

Since the Scriptures say that all Scripture is God-breathed and this concept is accepted by both groups then there is no need to prove anything beyond that concerning Scripture.

Does that mean that it is the only authority? No.

Therefore, the burden is REALLY to prove that the Catholic tradition has any authority outside of the canonization of what we accept as the Bible.

Looks like a new "red herring".

Ron

[ October 25, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Looks like a new "red herring".

Nope. You are asking for proof of a negative, i.e. "prove that the extrabiblical RCC sources are not valid." The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the assertion.

Example #3: Bigfoot can't exist. There's no good proof for it.

Problem: The inability to confirm or disconfirm something is not evidence in and of itself. Negative proof is not evidence.

Avoiding the problem: Don't argue from lack of evidence.

http://www.strangeark.com/articles/logic.html

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the assertion.

Right, and you were the one who told Carson that Scripture is the only authority. So prove it.

Ron

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Nope, my statement was:

Carson - since the only authority we all hold in common in this forum is Christ and the Scriptures, your arguments are another form of fallacious argumentation .

You have once again demonstrated "Disagreement by addition."

Jason and Dualhunter already pointed that out to you.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

But if you insist, post the canon or council that asserts that Mary was a lifelong virgin and witness the convincing power it has on the non-Catholics here.

Until you prove that anything beyond the Scriptures as authoratative you are inviting the usual taunts and jeers that Catholic sources always receive on this site. Many of your ranks have caught on to this. Some have not. The burden of proof remains on the Catholics to show their tradition plausible.

Back to the original post (does anyone remember the original post?) if the inscription found on the grave proves to be valid, it is likely to add evidence against the Catholic position of the enduring virginity of Mary. I am more likely to accept tangible, emperical evidence than a Catholic's non-Scriptural opinion.

The RCC will have to shift their position, just as they did on the geocentric model of the universe. Don't worry, Ron, they'll write another canon to explain it. Your faith will remain intact, I'm sure.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Nope, my statement was:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Carson - since the only authority we all hold in common in this forum is Christ and the Scriptures, your arguments are another form of fallacious argumentation .

You have once again demonstrated "Disagreement by addition."

Jason and Dualhunter already pointed that out to you.</font>[/QUOTE]Clint, I understand now. My apologies.

In that case, there is very little room for discussion on this board for anyone.

Scripture as your authority in reality is actually "what you think Scripture says" as your authority. So there is actually very little authority held in common by any persons on this board.

Go look at the discussion between DHK and Frank in the Baptist Commentator thread.

Ron

 

[GraceSaves]

Clint,

You attacked my first post on this thread, when I was making an analogy. Did it take things off course? Yes. Was that my intent? No. And if you claim it was, then you cannot chastise me for saying the same about other Baptist members who lay traps for the Catholics. We don't know others motives unless they give them, so don't assume.

My analogy is that the perpetual virginity of Mary was once endorsed by Luther, and then later he defended the belief against it. In contrast, Luther condemns all non-Lutheran outlooks on the Lord's supper, when in fact, this belief requires just as much faith and Scriptural leeway.

It was not a strawman, and your entire series of posts were very Ad Hominem.

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Clint, I understand now. My apologies.

In that case, there is very little room for discussion on this board for anyone.

Scripture as your authority in reality is actually "what you think Scripture says" as your authority. So there is actually very little authority held in common by any persons on this board.

Go look at the discussion between DHK and Frank in the Baptist Commentator thread.

Ron

Ron,

I have pointed this out several times already (as has Latreia and Dualhunter), the catholic position is the same as the non-catholic. Your interpretation of the catechism, various councils and canons are all interpretations. It would be absurd of you to say otherwise. Lets not get too off track again. I just wanted to point that out (again).

jason

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
I have pointed this out several times already (as has Latreia and Dualhunter), the catholic position is the same as the non-catholic. Your interpretation of the catechism, various councils and canons are all interpretations. It would be absurd of you to say otherwise. Lets not get too off track again. I just wanted to point that out (again).

jason

The difference being, Catholics do not read the Catechism and come to completely polar views as to the meaning.

The differences in interpretation are vastly more profound among the sola scriptura crowd.

Look and Frank and DHK.

Perhaps you could support your claim some time with an example.

Ron

[ October 25, 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:

It was not a strawman, and your entire series of posts were very Ad Hominem.

Ok. Ad Hominem. Not debating the topic, but attacking the person's credentials or integrity. Clint did not do this. He pointed out error in your post. Actually, even if there wasn't error, and he mistakenly 'pointed' to error, it wouldn't be ad hominem.

For Clint to have commited the fallacy of Ad Hominem he would have had to say something like:

"What do you know about being a virgin you badwordhere?"

or

"What do you know? You're just a catholic."

or

"Nothing to do with your argument, how about I just make fun of you instead?"

Not

"Ok, I am going to ignore your argument because it has this logical error in it."

The last is just a correction, not a fallacy.

People need to get their logical fallacies straight (for instance, trying2Understand did. He realized his argument against Clint's scripture argument was a fallacie. He corrected himself.).

Jason

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
The difference being, Catholics do not read the Catechism and come to completely polar views as to the meaning.

The differences in interpretation are vastly more profound among the sola scriptura crowd.

Actually, the degree of seperation does not matter. If there is seperation, at all, even in the slightest, your position is the same as non-catholics. You can then argue which is better based upon the degree to which they comform to one another, but that would be a hard argument to make and support with evidence.

Look and Frank and DHK.

I can't. I don't know where they live (hey, lookie here. I just made another example of how something could be said and mean something completely different than what was said. Unless of course you actually want me to go and 'look' at both of them.....sorry...I know this is not what you were talking about, but I had to point that out)

Perhaps you could support your claim some time with an example.

Ron

When the original argument was made, shown and verified, there were plenty of examples flying around. So, your rather disingenuous comment has no merit. But I know you will apologize for the rather uncharitable slight, so, I accept (a preemptive apology acceptance).

In Christ,
jason

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Note I said this find could lead, not will cause problems on its own.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How would it cause a problem for Catholic dogma? Or more precisely, Luther's dogma?

Still beating on that dead horse? Luther admitted that it was possible she did not remain a virgin and defended people's right to believe that she did not remain a virgin afterwards.</font>[/QUOTE]Hey Chemnitz, just a quick question, nothing debatable though. LOL... Just have not studied alot on the subject so its more for understanding than anything. And Carson, you may be able to help me out as well.

In the eyes of a Catholic, do you guys beleive that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life?

So I guess I dont understand why the tomb would be a problem if it was James. So what I am gathering from you Chemnitz is that you are saying that if it is Jesus's brother, that means mary is not a virgin any more??? Am I following you correctly on this?

Thanks.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
When the original argument was made, shown and verified, there were plenty of examples flying around.

Do you remember the title of the thread?

I don't recall any examples.

Ron

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jasonW*:
When the original argument was made, shown and verified, there were plenty of examples flying around.

Do you remember the title of the thread?

I don't recall any examples.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]No, I don't. And when I did a search looking for it, I only got a limited number of threads. Also, some of the threads didn't come up. Got a message: Thread does not exist.

Clint? Any idea why this is? I searched for my usernumber (2772) and it only went back to Aug 16th (I used 'Any Date').

jason

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Jason -

We had been having bandwidth problems for a while (you probably got a server error report or two some weeks back) and that is when the webmaster created the archives. Odds are, the thread for which you are searching is in the FFA Archive. I have not updated the index and posting histories since the last mass move so the search engine may not work yet for threads between July 15th and (I think) August 20th.

My instructions were to try to keep forums under 5000 posts to save bandwidth. I'll try to get to the update tonight. I try to wait for slow times on the board, usually the middle of the night, because I have to close down the board to do it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You can search the archive page by page right now. There is only a month's worth of unupdated topics from only this forum and the Calvinism/Arminianism forum in there right now.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Grant, Ron, Clint, and all others,

This may be of interest to you guys:

Translation of Scripture into Modern Japanese Is Completed:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=26916

Clint wrote, "Back to the original post (does anyone remember the original post?) if the inscription found on the grave proves to be valid, it is likely to add evidence against the Catholic position of the enduring virginity of Mary."

In my initial post on this thread, I immediately diffused this argument. Clint, I urge you to read it:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001172

It should be obvious by now to everyone that mutual edifying dialogue cannot continue until the foundational concern of authority is settled.

Catholic theology recognizes that all authority comes from the Father, that it was given to the Son, and that the Son gave it to his Church, which is just as visible as the Incarnate Redeemer was and still is in his glorified state. The Church produced the New Testament texts through its authors and redactors and retained them in existence for the primary purpose of reading them in her liturgy to feed the souls of the faithful. She also refers to Scripture as the norm that norms in her theology.

Clint and his Protestant contemporaries on the board do not recognize the greater context of the Bible.

Since they have rejected a priori the Christian Church that produced, defined, preserved, and promulgated the texts, they have set up their own authority (actually, they inherited this newly founded authority from their Protestant teachers), which is a mixture of Scripture and private judgment (Scripture can never be separated from the eyes that translate the text; this is an enlightenment presupposition).

Until Catholics come to recognize that the Magisterial authority of the bishops is supposed to give way to Scripture and private judgment at some locus in time that is already past, or the Protestants come to recognize that they are attributing to the Bible a place that it was never meant to acquire, we will be left in a standstill regarding dialogue.

Lastly, I would continue to reassert the argument of the New Testament canon, which I have found to serve as the foundational unanswerable argument that Clint nor any of the other Protestants on this board are able to answer. And, a published Protestant Scripture exegete whom I discussed this with two weeks ago could not answer it either.

In fact, no Protestant can answer the argument, and since any system of thought is only as strong as its foundation, it shows the weakness of the Protestant foundation.

The argument entails the composition or canon of the New Testament. Scripture cannot define itself, and it is the Church in her Tradition and Magisterial authority that has set the boundaries to the New Testament that Protestants venerate so dearly.

And, then, the Protestants have rejected the seven Deuterocanonical texts from the Old Testament with explanations that could just as well be aimed at New Testament texts themselves. But, Protestants will not make this move for the precise reason that they are so entrenched in their own tradition established by men in the 16th century that they will not question the canon of the New Testament (for the most part; there are aberrations).

Until the Protestants on this board can show the Catholics just how the Bible fell from the sky in its leather-bound KJV translation with God's imprimatur, they should adhere to the self-same Tradition and Authority that defines the boundaries of the Sacred Text they hold in such dear esteem. To be consistent, they should also return the Deuterocanonical texts to their rightful place.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 25, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Clint,

The Protoevangelium of James teaches the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

So, there's your proof. Scripture teaches the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Now, of course, you don't accept the Protoevangelium of James as Scripture. Would you please explain why?

yours,

Carson

[ October 25, 2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Because the Apocryphal Gospels are second century documents. The author of this text that you present in your link is not authentically written by James, the brother of Jesus. The actual Letter of James was written around 50 - 60 AD, written by an actual eyewitness from the Apostolic age.

The Apocrypha is not recognized as Scripture. At best, they are legends.

They are just more Catholic writings, Carson. Their authenticity is more than questionable, it is false. James would have been over 120 years old at the earliest opportunity of this writing. They were written to fill an agenda. It was obviously successful for a link to show up here 1800 years later.

Even the Catholic Church does not recognize the Apocryphal gospels as canonized:

1-4. The Canonical Gospels.
5. The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
6. The Gospel of Peter.
7. The Gospel according to the Egyptians
8. The Gospel of Matthias.
9. The Gospel of Philip.
10. The Gospel of Thomas.
11. The Proto-Evangelium of James.
12. The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
13.The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
14.The Gospel of Basilides.
15.The Gospel of Valentinus.
16.The Gospel of Marcion.
17.The Gospel of Eve.
18.The Gospel of Judas.
19.The writing Genna Marias.
20.The Gospel Teleioseos.

Despite the early date which is sometimes claimed for some of these works, it is not likely that any one of them, outside our canonical Gospels, should be reckoned among the attempts at narrating the life of Christ, of which St. Luke speaks in the prologue to his Gospel. Most of them, as far as can be made out are late productions, the apocryphal character of which is generally admitted by contemporary scholars (see APOCRYPHA).

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Actually after reading through, even the Catholics don't claim this as their own AT ALL!

I forgot to list my source in the last post:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

[ October 25, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Dualhunter]

One reason is that the name of Mary's father as given in the Protoevangelium of James (Ioacim) contradicts the name of Mary's father as recorded by Luke (Heli). Scripture does not contradict itself which also rules out the so-called deuterocanonical book of Judith because of it's claim that Nebuchanezzar was king in Ninevah instead of Babylon as scripture states.