Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Ken4TA

Actually, it was material to your question — if you were Calvin, you came 1500 years after The Church was formed and you contradict what the 1st century Christians believed If you are you (which you are:-P), then you come 2000 years after Christ formed His Church and contradict 1st century Christians


717 posted on 03/21/2010 9:27:20 PM PDT by Cronos (St. Ambrose -- elected by popular acclaim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos
Actually, it was material to your question — if you were Calvin, you came 1500 years after The Church was formed and you contradict what the 1st century Christians believed If you are you (which you are:-P), then you come 2000 years after Christ formed His Church and contradict 1st century Christians.

Negative. I'm not a follower of either Luther or Calvin. I was raised in a RC family and educated in RC schools. After Vatican Council II, which stated that RC members should read the Bible, I did! That is what led me out of the RCC! I'm a follower of Christ, a Christian - and not a hyphenated one! BTW, your saying I'm a -P, which doesn't mean much to me, is something you are merely guessing at!

__________________________________________

And, here you go contradicting people who came before you. How do you know that the scriptures are “inspired” by the way? Why don’t you include The Acts of Paul and Theda as scripture?

Here is what was said:
The Tradition about Anne and Joachim are documented from the 1st and 2nd century Christians.

To which I responded:
"Your "Tradition" is a mere story passed on by an uninspired writer from an unknown place and time. Substantiate it if you can. "

Again, substantiate it if you can. BTW, The Acts of Paul and Theda, when read, show that they are not worthy of being called "Scriptures" of Christianity.

_____________________________________

Actually, history IS on the side of the CHurch -- read Church history, read secular history and you will see that first century Christians believed what The Apostolic Church believes, not a protestant belief.

Here is what was said:

My comment:
"Your assertion is meaningless. Prove the IC of Mary from your "Tradition" AND the Scriptures - if you can!"
BTW, history is not on your side on this issue!

If you can't address my comments and challenges, why don't you just admit you can't?

________________________________

The IC is based on scripture as I said and it does not in any way CONTRADICT scripture.

Here is what was said:

My comment:
"BTW, history is not on your side on this issue! " I asked you to substantiate the IC of Mary as being from the time of the Apostles - If you can't do so, why not just admit you can't?

Assertions don't mean a thing to me. If you want to show me you are worthy of responding to anymore, address my questions and substantiate your assertions! If you can't, just say so and we'll leave it there!

730 posted on 03/21/2010 10:01:35 PM PDT by Ken4TA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson