Christian Discussion Thread V

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No your position has jumped back and forth from the Immaculate conception being unfounded in scripture to it being contradictory to scripture. You have answered counter arguments to your claim by switching back and forth. This is called moving the goal poast. Stop doing that, it's hard enough to score as it is.

My position is that it's both not supported and contradicted. Romans 3:23. If Mary was sinless, it would have stated it. Then you said "what about Jesus?", I gave you biblical passages that affirm his sinlessness. Then you say "Hah, I'm not going to trust those Protestant sources." and use ad hominem against the authors of the source.

Wow, you really have not paid attention to what I've said have you. Can you not comprehend basic logical inference? Do we have to spell it out for you again? For the love of God.

Ignoring the unsubstantian argument focusing solely on Romans 3:23.

You have claimed that because Paul has said "all have sinned"... Which means Mary must have sinned. However Jesus was also a man. The bible tells us that Jesus was sinles, but Romans 3:23 says All have sinned which would have to include Jesus because he was a man.. So either A. The bible is contradicting itself here, or B You are wrong in your application of Romans 3:23 as a literal totality and not merely just a hyperbole.

I'm gonna go with B.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

But Paul refers to his own writings as scripture in addition to saying that all scripture is god-breathed.

No, Paul refers to the TeNakh. He had no idea he was writing scripture. His works wouldn't become codified scripture until long after he passed.

Apologies, it's Peter who refers to Paul's writings as scripture.
http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-16.htm
But seeing as our conceptual basis for the NT canon is the authority Paul argues that he and the other Apostles have, the many points in which he talks about his own authority, apostleship, and authority as a result of his apostleship are de facto talking about the same thing.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

So, where do you think the church derives its legitimacy from, then?

From the people who founded it.

So from the early church, then, and it from the Apostles and Jesus?
And Jesus from the Father, and the Father from Himself?
It seems that the NT is usually seen as authoritative on the basis of its acceptance by the Early Church and authorship by Apostles: deriving again from Jesus and then the Father and then Himself- which would be the same lineage.

[Cannabis Islands]

My position is that it's both not supported and contradicted. Romans 3:23. If Mary was sinless, it would have stated it. Then you said "what about Jesus?", I gave you biblical passages that affirm his sinlessness. Then you say "Hah, I'm not going to trust those Protestant sources." and use ad hominem against the authors of the source.

Wow, you really have not paid attention to what I've said have you. Can you not comprehend basic logical inference? Do we have to spell it out for you again? For the love of God.

Ignoring the unsubstantian argument focusing solely on Romans 3:23.

You have claimed that because Paul has said "all have sinned"... Which means Mary must have sinned. However Jesus was also a man. The bible tells us that Jesus was sinles, but Romans 3:23 says All have sinned which would have to include Jesus because he was a man.. So either A. The bible is contradicting itself here, or B You are wrong in your application of Romans 3:23 as a literal totality and not merely just a hyperbole.

I'm gonna go with B.

Again. If Mary was sinless, it would have said so in the Bible. It does not. It explicitly stated that Jesus sinless, but there is absolutely no mention of Mary's so called sinlessness.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, Paul refers to the TeNakh. He had no idea he was writing scripture. His works wouldn't become codified scripture until long after he passed.

Apologies, it's Peter who refers to Paul's writings as scripture.
http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-16.htm
But seeing as our conceptual basis for the NT canon is the authority Paul argues that he and the other Apostles have, the many points in which he talks about his own authority, apostleship, and authority as a result of his apostleship are de facto talking about the same thing.

He doesn't expressly say that Paul's writings our scriptures but I can see how that would be inferred.


And the Paul's many references to his authority are not meant to be argumentative. He's writing to people who already know who he is and of his authority as an apostle. They're reminders.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Wow, you really have not paid attention to what I've said have you. Can you not comprehend basic logical inference? Do we have to spell it out for you again? For the love of God.

Ignoring the unsubstantian argument focusing solely on Romans 3:23.

You have claimed that because Paul has said "all have sinned"... Which means Mary must have sinned. However Jesus was also a man. The bible tells us that Jesus was sinles, but Romans 3:23 says All have sinned which would have to include Jesus because he was a man.. So either A. The bible is contradicting itself here, or B You are wrong in your application of Romans 3:23 as a literal totality and not merely just a hyperbole.

I'm gonna go with B.

Again. If Mary was sinless, it would have said so in the Bible. It does not. It is explicitly stated that Jesus sinless, but there is absolutely no mention of Mary's so called sinlessness.

You're doing this to annoy me aren't you. You just moved the goal poast. AGAIN.

[Coulee Croche]

The Tradition that Bible today is Canon cannot be found in the bible. Therefore the isnt bibocally based, so by your logic, its not a requirement for belief.

Again, you say "tradition", I'm going by what the Bible says.

You dont believe in tradition, so how do you know your reading the correct bible? *coughs*even though the bible disagrees with you*cough*
Go by what the bible says? unless when it speaks tradition amarite?

As I said before, The Bible is infallible,

Then what it says about tradition is truth

the traditions of men are not. If you say that tradition plays a role in what is required for belief, why on the traditions of the Native Americans vaild? Just because something comes from tradition does not mean it's biblically correct.

The real question is, why dont you ask the bible why it approves of tradition hmm?
Oh and the reason is probably due to the fact that they cant be traced to te Early Christians?

Bible: Me+oral tradition
You: no, just you. No tradition
Bible: but i am tradition

[Tarsonis Survivors]

From the people who founded it.

So from the early church, then, and it from the Apostles and Jesus?
And Jesus from the Father, and the Father from Himself?
It seems that the NT is usually seen as authoritative on the basis of its acceptance by the Early Church and authorship by Apostles: deriving again from Jesus and then the Father and then Himself- which would be the same lineage.

the scriptures get their authority from the Church that codified them. They codified them based on the authority of those who wrote them. Those who wrote them got their authority from Christ, directly. Their authority passed down through their successors. Who then had the authority to codify them.


I hope that makes sense.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Apologies, it's Peter who refers to Paul's writings as scripture.
http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-16.htm
But seeing as our conceptual basis for the NT canon is the authority Paul argues that he and the other Apostles have, the many points in which he talks about his own authority, apostleship, and authority as a result of his apostleship are de facto talking about the same thing.

He doesn't expressly say that Paul's writings our scriptures but I can see how that would be inferred.


And the Paul's many references to his authority are not meant to be argumentative. He's writing to people who already know who he is and of his authority as an apostle. They're reminders.

Heh, actually I heard the opposite in my NT class just recently- that much of it was written against various heresies and schismatics, including an internal controversy thought to be between misguided "followers of Paul" and "followers of Peter and James." Like, on one occasion Paul founded a church in a city, then left, and then the Judaizers started to gain influence and convinced a bunch of the people in the city that they needed to get circumcized and follow the law and hate Paul, and Paul wrote back all heartbroken with "yo, I thought we were cool," and stuff.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

He doesn't expressly say that Paul's writings our scriptures but I can see how that would be inferred.


And the Paul's many references to his authority are not meant to be argumentative. He's writing to people who already know who he is and of his authority as an apostle. They're reminders.

Heh, actually I heard the opposite in my NT class just recently- that much of it was written against various heresies and schismatics, including an internal controversy thought to be between misguided "followers of Paul" and "followers of Peter and James." Like, on one occasion Paul founded a church in a city, then left, and then the Judaizers started to gain influence and convinced a bunch of the people in the city that they needed to get circumcized and follow the law and hate Paul, and Paul wrote back all heartbroken with "yo, I thought we were cool," and stuff.

Right right. But his reference to his authority is not Proof of his authority, it's a reminder of his authority and a substantiation of his teaching that follows. That's my point.

[Cannabis Islands]

Again, you say "tradition", I'm going by what the Bible says.

You dont believe in tradition, so how do you know your reading the correct bible? *coughs*even though the bible disagrees with you*cough*
Go by what the bible says? unless when it speaks tradition amarite?

As I said before, The Bible is infallible,

Then what it says about tradition is truth

the traditions of men are not. If you say that tradition plays a role in what is required for belief, why on the traditions of the Native Americans vaild? Just because something comes from tradition does not mean it's biblically correct.

The real question is, why dont you ask the bible why it approves of tradition hmm?
Oh and the reason is probably due to the fact that they cant be traced to te Early Christians?

Bible: Me+oral tradition
You: no, just you. No tradition
Bible: but i am tradition

And again, such things as the "immaculate conception" contradict Scripture.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You dont believe in tradition, so how do you know your reading the correct bible? *coughs*even though the bible disagrees with you*cough*
Go by what the bible says? unless when it speaks tradition amarite?

Then what it says about tradition is truth

The real question is, why dont you ask the bible why it approves of tradition hmm?
Oh and the reason is probably due to the fact that they cant be traced to te Early Christians?

Bible: Me+oral tradition
You: no, just you. No tradition
Bible: but i am tradition

And again, such things as the "immaculate conception" contradict Scripture.

No they don't.

Contradicting scripture and not being supported by scripture are not one in the same. Those are two seperate arguments, they must be argued separately.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Tradition that Bible today is Canon cannot be found in the bible. Therefore the isnt bibocally based, so by your logic, its not a requirement for belief.

Again, you say "tradition", I'm going by what the Bible says. As I said before, The Bible is infallible, the traditions of men are not. If you say that tradition plays a role in what is required for belief, why are not the traditions of the Native Americans vaild? Just because something comes from tradition does not mean it's biblically correct.

Except the bible says the traditions are correct

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Heh, actually I heard the opposite in my NT class just recently- that much of it was written against various heresies and schismatics, including an internal controversy thought to be between misguided "followers of Paul" and "followers of Peter and James." Like, on one occasion Paul founded a church in a city, then left, and then the Judaizers started to gain influence and convinced a bunch of the people in the city that they needed to get circumcized and follow the law and hate Paul, and Paul wrote back all heartbroken with "yo, I thought we were cool," and stuff.

Right right. But his reference to his authority is not Proof of his authority, it's a reminder of his authority and a substantiation of his teaching that follows. That's my point.

To emphasize that Paul's authority as an apostle doesn't derive from the scripture he wrote, it derives from Jesus' mandate? Yeah, I certainly agree with that (and that much is in agreement with the Protestant position). But doesn't his writing's authority derive from the same?

[Cannabis Islands]

And again, such things as the "immaculate conception" contradict Scripture.

No they don't.

Contradicting scripture and not being supported by scripture are not one in the same. Those are two seperate arguments, they must be argued separately.

No, it does not. They can be both. Jesus sinlessness is explicitly stated in the Bible. If Mary was also sinless, she would be the only woman on earth ever to be, and this would be stated in the Bible. It is not. When I ask you were does this idea come from, you keep bringing up tradition and the example I gave of Native Americans refutes that . I can also bring up the ancient cultures of Europe, why aren't they valid. They are most certainly based on tradition

P.s: sorry, for the typos I'm on mobile

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Right right. But his reference to his authority is not Proof of his authority, it's a reminder of his authority and a substantiation of his teaching that follows. That's my point.

To emphasize that Paul's authority as an apostle doesn't derive from the scripture he wrote, it derives from Jesus' mandate? Yeah, I certainly agree with that (and that much is in agreement with the Protestant position). But doesn't his writing's authority derive from the same?

In an order of progression. His writings cary his authority, which comes from Christ.

[Cannabis Islands]

Again, you say "tradition", I'm going by what the Bible says. As I said before, The Bible is infallible, the traditions of men are not. If you say that tradition plays a role in what is required for belief, why are not the traditions of the Native Americans vaild? Just because something comes from tradition does not mean it's biblically correct.

Except the bible says the traditions are correct

See above post.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

To emphasize that Paul's authority as an apostle doesn't derive from the scripture he wrote, it derives from Jesus' mandate? Yeah, I certainly agree with that (and that much is in agreement with the Protestant position). But doesn't his writing's authority derive from the same?

In an order of progression. His writings cary his authority, which comes from Christ.

Yes. Okay, that's what I think too.
So this much we can all agree to: the Apostles derive their authority from Jesus. The scriptural texts derive their authority from the fact that they were written by apostles. The early church derives its authority from the fact that it was created by apostles.
Okay, so here's my next assertion, and you'll have to tell me whether we're agreed about it: the early church used its authority to correctly determine which scriptural texts had derived authority from the apostles when they made the canon. So:
1. Scripture derives its authority from the apostles, and
2. We know that the specific texts we have are scripture on the authority of the early church.
And then finally:
The RC church argues that it derives authority to interpret scripture and define doctrine from the early church by virtue of being a continuation of it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No they don't.

Contradicting scripture and not being supported by scripture are not one in the same. Those are two seperate arguments, they must be argued separately.

No, it does not. They can be both. Jesus sinlessness is explicitly stated in the Bible. If Mary was also sinless, she would be the only woman on earth ever to be, and this would be stated in the Bible. It is not. When I ask you were does this idea come from, you keep bringing up tradition and the example of Native Americans. I can also bring up the ancient cultures of Europe, why aren't they valid. They are most certainly based on tradition.

That's not how language works. The fact that it says so elsewhere in the Bible only serves as a contradiction. Because Paul says "All" and doesn't add the quantifier "except for Jesus", That statement "all have sinned" either A. Contradicts said statement of Jesus being sinless, or B, is hyperbole and not a literal totality. Since the sacrifice of Christ is dependent on him being sinless it is safe to assume that He was sinless, and that Paul is not sppeaking a literal totality, but instead using a hyperbolic statement to encompass how 99.99999 of Man has sinned. Since we can deduce that Paul is using a hyperbolic statement, and not a literal totality, the doctrine of imaculate concept does not conflict with this statement.


Now, you have repeatedly stated that It had to be included in the bible for it to be true. This as I have shown repeatedly is an illogical statement. There is no requirement logically or theologically for a doctrine to be sourced in scripture. So your argument that the Immacualte Conception isn't sourced in scripture in no way undermines its veracity.



Those traditions aren't based on Christian tradition, they don't count. You're really grasping at straws there.

[Cannabis Islands]

No, it does not. They can be both. Jesus sinlessness is explicitly stated in the Bible. If Mary was also sinless, she would be the only woman on earth ever to be, and this would be stated in the Bible. It is not. When I ask you were does this idea come from, you keep bringing up tradition and the example of Native Americans. I can also bring up the ancient cultures of Europe, why aren't they valid. They are most certainly based on tradition.

That's not how language works. The fact that it says so elsewhere in the Bible only serves as a contradiction. Because Paul says "All" and doesn't add the quantifier "except for Jesus", That statement "all have sinned" either A. Contradicts said statement of Jesus being sinless, or B, is hyperbole and not a literal totality. Since the sacrifice of Christ is dependent on him being sinless it is safe to assume that He was sinless, and that Paul is not sppeaking a literal totality, but instead using a hyperbolic statement to encompass how 99.99999 of Man has sinned. Since we can deduce that Paul is using a hyperbolic statement, and not a literal totality, the doctrine of imaculate concept does not conflict with this statement.


Now, you have repeatedly stated that It had to be included in the bible for it to be true. This as I have shown repeatedly is an illogical statement. There is no requirement logically or theologically for a doctrine to be sourced in scripture. So your argument that the Immacualte Conception isn't sourced in scripture in no way undermines its veracity.



Those traditions aren't based on Christian tradition, they don't count. You're really grasping at straws there.

And here is our fundamental disagreement. My position is that for something to be a dogma, it has to be biblically-based. Your position that it does not have to be. If it does not have to be and it can be solely on tradition, then what is stopping from one saying that native American, ancient Greece and Roman traditions are valid. Then you stated that in order for a tradition to be valid, it must be Christian. That is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

That's not how language works. The fact that it says so elsewhere in the Bible only serves as a contradiction. Because Paul says "All" and doesn't add the quantifier "except for Jesus", That statement "all have sinned" either A. Contradicts said statement of Jesus being sinless, or B, is hyperbole and not a literal totality. Since the sacrifice of Christ is dependent on him being sinless it is safe to assume that He was sinless, and that Paul is not sppeaking a literal totality, but instead using a hyperbolic statement to encompass how 99.99999 of Man has sinned. Since we can deduce that Paul is using a hyperbolic statement, and not a literal totality, the doctrine of imaculate concept does not conflict with this statement.


Now, you have repeatedly stated that It had to be included in the bible for it to be true. This as I have shown repeatedly is an illogical statement. There is no requirement logically or theologically for a doctrine to be sourced in scripture. So your argument that the Immacualte Conception isn't sourced in scripture in no way undermines its veracity.



Those traditions aren't based on Christian tradition, they don't count. You're really grasping at straws there.

And here is our fundamental disagreement. My position is that for something to be a dogma, it has to be biblically-based. Your position that it does not have to be. If it does not have to be and it can be solely on tradition, then what is stopping from one saying that native American, ancient Greece and Roman traditions are valid. Then you stated that in order for a tradition to be valid, it must be Christian. That is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I'm really not seeing how it's a no true scotsman.

[Cannabis Islands]

And here is our fundamental disagreement. My position is that for something to be a dogma, it has to be biblically-based. Your position that it does not have to be. If it does not have to be and it can be solely on tradition, then what is stopping from one saying that native American, ancient Greece and Roman traditions are valid. Then you stated that in order for a tradition to be valid, it must be Christian. That is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I'm really not seeing how it's a no true scotsman.

Yes, it is. Their position is something only needs tradition in order for it to be a dogma. If that is the case, why are not the ancient traditions of Rome and Greece valid?

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

I'm really not seeing how it's a no true scotsman.

Yes, it is. Their position is something only needs tradition in order for it to be a dogma. If that is the case, why are not the ancient traditions of Rome and Greece valid?

Because it's catholic dogma.

[Cannabis Islands]

Yes, it is. Their position is something only needs tradition in order for it to be a dogma. If that is the case, why are not the ancient traditions of Rome and Greece valid?

Because it's catholic dogma.

And since it had no support and is even contradicted in Scripture, it is not a requirement for belief.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Because it's catholic dogma.

And since it had no support and is even contradicted in Scripture, it is not a requirement for belief.

It is for catholics, though.