I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!
I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!
No, you were arguing facts which weren't relevant. I know you disagree with the tradition, but agreeing and disagreeing are not what was at issue. The claim was that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition, which is not true. My post had nothing to do with your "we wuz first . . ." commentary. It was a response to a direct assertion which was erroneous. And, BTW, the Church conjured nothing up out of thin air. What I have posted regarding St. Joseph is an ancient tradition. You can reject it if you want, and I wouldn't argue with that, but it is not made up out of thin air.
Not quite. She has employed forgeries to support her claims, and to teach for doctrines traditions of men, while Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Note The Assumption Of Mary In The Earliest Sources, but " It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
The only Divine evidence to Rome of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.