John's Gospel & Epistles

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Nope. How about we call it a fable. Why did John omit this fable ? Naw, that question don't make sense.

Ron, just answer it, please. Stop with the chiding already.

Why do you insist on using the word "ascension" when it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you that the doctrine you question is "assumption"?

Please, be kind enough to answer this very simple question.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

As soon as you answer mine. I asked first.

It makes little sense to me to have to call a fable anything but a fable.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
As soon as you answer mine. I asked first.

It makes little sense to me to have to call a fable anything but a fable.

Curtis,

You asked a question that has an error in it. "Ascension," in regards to Mary, is incorrect. Why should he, or anyone else, answer a question that has an obvious error in it? He shouldn't.

Fix your question, or address the error. Then the question can be answered.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Ha!!

I've been waiting for an answer for a while. There is no answer, 'cuz Mary didn't bodily rise anywhere. If so, God would have let us know.

And, I've also been waithing for our RCC guests to tell me the origin of this nonsense, and that hasn't come, either.

 

[GraceSaves]

Curtis,

Thank you for evidence that you are unwilling to admit making errors, and your willing ascent to furthering those errors, and then proclaiming yourself correct because we won't answer questions that contain obvious errors.

God bless,

Grant

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Going thru this thread, I do not see a clear answer on how John could have possibly thought that Mary's ascension/assumption wasn't important enough to document. How did he miss it ? Why did he omit this ?

Curtis, you are asking for the impossible.

You are asking for me to know the mind of another.

You are asking for proof from silence.

My questions to you, on the other hand can only be answered by you.

Will you be so kind as to grace me with a direct answer?

Why do you insist on using the word "ascension" when it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you that the doctrine you question is "assumption"?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Assumption or ascension, however you address it, it is a fable. A story with absolutely no factual basis whatsoever.

Prove otherwise, and I will call it whatever you want.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Assumption or ascension, however you address it, it is a fable. A story with absolutely no factual basis whatsoever.

Prove otherwise, and I will call it whatever you want.

Assumption and ascension are fundamentally different. You will address the issue properly or the issue will not be addressed (at least by me). If you can't be respectful, why should I respect your questions?

God bless,

Grant

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Assumption or ascension, however you address it, it is a fable. A story with absolutely no factual basis whatsoever.

Prove otherwise, and I will call it whatever you want.

Why do you insist on using the word "ascension" when it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you that the doctrine you question is "assumption"?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So you guys have no idea why John left it out. You cannot answer it. That is my thought.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
So you guys have no idea why John left it out. You cannot answer it. That is my thought.

So you cannot admit making an error and being disrepectful in the manner in which you ask us questions. That is my thought.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Correctamundo. I will give unGodly doctrine zero respect.

 

[show me]

"And I am guilty of nastiness here."

Bro. Curtis:

What kind of witness is this? Do you really think you will win anyone over with the way you are acting?

I don't see the other Baptist on this board being disrespectful and "nasty."

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And what kind of witness is avoiding a question with accusations and subject changing, etc...

What kind of witness is adding to the Bible ?

What kind of witness would invent a doctrine, and call it inspired ?

What kind of witness claims salvation can only be fully enjoyed by their supervision ?

What kind of witness hides sodomizers ?

What kind of witness kills New Testament Christians by the millions, and claim it didn't happen ?

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
And what kind of witness is avoiding a question with accusations and subject changing, etc...

"What kind of witness is adding to the Bible ?"

Show me where?


"What kind of witness would invent a doctrine, and call it inspired ?"

Well you will have to tell me why you believe Sola Scriptura then.

"What kind of witness claims salvation can only be fully enjoyed by their supervision ?"

A simplistic misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. One day you guys complain we are exclusive and the next day you rail that the Catechism of the Catholic Church holds out that a Moslem might be saved if he is ignorant of his error. You can't have it both ways guys. It is painfully apparent that you just don't understand the doctrines. They are quite reconcillable but not your way.


"What kind of witness hides sodomizers ?"

No baptist has ever hid a sodomizer? All Catholics have? That would mean that you are bearing false witness. A no no if I remember my ten commandments. God will be the judge of who has and who hasn't and will act accordingly. You are not God last I checked.
I have posted links to Baptist pastor sodomites. No proof any of the claims against them were not ignored for some time. I won't do it again. Suffice it to say there are skeletons in the Baptist closet also.
"What kind of witness kills New Testament Christians by the millions, and claim it didn't happen ?

"

Now I don't claim that none were killed but do you have a list of names for me to support your millions number. I happen to be reading a book named "Salvation at Stake" written by a Protestant who takes a very unbiased approch. He has studied the tiems quite in detail and does not come up with near that number. The other question of course is who actually killed these people? In those days people were put to death for even smaller crimes such as stealing. Even the reformers agreed that when a man publicly professed heresy it was akin to killing the body as it was killing the soul and so it was taken much more seriously in those days. Governments who took their authority from Romans 13 took it upon themselves to enforce religoius orthodoxy. Protestant governments killed for what they deemed to be false theology. Ever heard of a guy named Servetus. Look him up on the web and how he was burned by the Calvinists, you know 5 points calinism. Oh by the way have you seen the link I have posted several times, linking the KKK to the Baptists.

http://www.detnet.com/wilke/klan1.html

Don't put your head in the sand too far. What kind of Church has no outcry about it's members dragging black men behind a car and burning their Churches. They turn a blink wink wink eye to it all.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

If you dig upo any records of my church hanging black men, let me know.

www.invitation.org

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
And what kind of witness is avoiding a question with accusations and subject changing, etc...

What kind of witness is adding to the Bible ?

What kind of witness would invent a doctrine, and call it inspired ?

What kind of witness claims salvation can only be fully enjoyed by their supervision ?

What kind of witness hides sodomizers ?

What kind of witness kills New Testament Christians by the millions, and claim it didn't happen ?

What kind of false arguement is it where you turn and point the finger at someone else in response to a question about your behavior?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Why didn't John write about Mary's rising bodily from earth ?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Why didn't John write about Mary's rising bodily from earth ?

Asked and answered.

From my previous post.

"Curtis, you are asking for the impossible.

You are asking for me to know the mind of another.

You are asking for proof from silence."

You may as well be asking how high is up.

 

[rufus]

Protestants have criticized Mariology because many assertions apparently lack biblical foundation. Scripture does not mention her immaculate conception or assumption. Her perpetual virginity is challenged by references to Jesus' sisters and brothers (Mark 3:31; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-10; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; Mariologists claim they were cousins). Moreover, the Gospels do not present Mary unambiguously as sinless and in continuous accord with Christ's will. Protestants have also argued that Mariology exaggerates the contribution that any human can make to divine redemption. Luther and Calvin saw Mary as a human who in herself was nothing; she was enabled to bear Christ wholly through God's grace. Conservative Protestants argue that most Mariological excesses, her roles as Mother of God's Creatures, co-redemptrix, intercessor; her immaculate conception; and her "fullness of grace", spring from overestimating the human role in redemption, which was perhaps already implied by Irenaeus. This ancient theological issue may be the most fundamental one surrounding Mariology.

rufus