Parker -- I insist you present the writings of these two Popes rejecting the Assumption. Such documents, if authentic, would be life-changing revelations to us Catholics here.

Here is the document in question concerning the Assumption: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/ ... elito.html

It does not take a rocket scientist to readily see that it was written by a Gnostic or a Collyridian, and hence condemned.

Here is the document of Pope Gelasius condemning said writing: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/ ... retum.html

Unfortunately, it is in Latin. I will wait until Parker translates it for us and gives us the relevant parts to back up his bogus claim that the dogma of the Assumption is condemned in that decree.

Your feet are in the fire now, Parker.

I can provide you a writing from a Christian in the 1st Century talking about faith alone.

And then from every century after that, or it is merely your own interpretation.

You really need to read this:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html



He gives good reasons why he included the word -- because of how German sentences are constructed.

But, I ask you, is the method of constructing a German sentence enough to base your entire theology upon?

The problem is that the Church's teaching is nothing more than speculative theology; the magisterium has gone well beyond its boundaries to assert something that has no backing in either history or scripture. Hence, the doctrine is entirely baseless.

Parker

A German interpretation of the text is quite logical and straightforward; there is no ambiguity in the language itself. (e.g. 'Virgin' in German is 'Jungfrau' which literally means 'young woman') There really no ambiguity in the text.

Parker

Pax,

Why should I? You haven't provided a document that shows a notion that tradition is defined as the Catholic Church describes it. You only cite sources that mention 'tradition' in the context; hence, the points upon this notion is completely baseless.

Parker

Well the arguments you cited are coming from the same source I cited (Bill Webster); thanks for using the source.

However, seeing that this document Transitus Mariae is not an official document of the Catholic Church (or an ECF creed or commentary by a member of the Roman Magisterium), one should be quick to point out that this document has no basis for historicity or authority.

Who's feet are in the fire now?

Parker

Are you seriously that logically challenged?

All "young women" are virgins? What planet have you been living on? That is why we reject the word "almah" inserted into Isaias 7 and stick with the Septuagint "parthenos".

Yes, we are familiar with such intellectually dishonest exegesis.

I've obliterated plenty of such arguments. I recall the perpetrator was Webster, Bugay (beggarsall) and Rudd (bible.ca).


And why are you reading the fathers through the lens of Webster, Bugay and Rudd? Go read it yourselves. You don't need them. You don't want to do the hard work? You only want quick result that favor the Protestant view because you're pre-disposed to the view that Protestantism is right and Catholicism is apostate instead of being neutral?

Or maybe if you read it yourselves you would become confuse and question your Protestant faith so you feel the need to read it through the lens of others?

Usually, if one wants to understand the 'interpretation' properly, then one needs to let the context speak for itself. Even though 'almah' does not specifically have one generic definition, oftentimes the surrounding context determines what the word means.

Not all 'young women' are virgins; however, there would be other words to describe women who are young, but are not virgins. Back in Luther's time (and perhaps today), most young women would not be considered married or harlots because they were not sexually active.

Parker

Well, does the Hebrew text say "virgin" or "young woman"?

What does the Greek text say?

Remember, the Septuagint, which is cited in the NT, is older than the Dead Sea Scrolls by about 200 years, and older than the Masoretic Texts by about 1000 years.

PS -- Are you really that logically challenged?

Catholics should the last ones to do the talking.


Agreed, and in such circumstances I have concluded the following:

The Early Church Fathers does not define or use tradition in the same sense the Catholic Church does.

The Early Church Fathers did not espouse the Bodily Assumption as fact.


Only if Catholics can provide an answer to my questions.

Parker

The translation can be used as both.


Are you this delusional?

Parker

Do you not see how using the erroneous Hebrew texts casts a pall upon the Virgin Birth and is used by the enemies of Christianity for just that purpose?



I was refering you to another post above.

There will always be ambiguity for interpretation with words in any language; however, the context will always win out. This is a rule in hermeneutics that get debated oftentimes because Scholars attempt to ignore the point. Furthermore, you are implicating that Hebrew (as a language) is insufficient for interpretation. Is that what you're pointing out?

Parker

We usually are and we are usually right (not individually, but the Church). Good of you to recognize that fact.



They definitely did. Read them for yourself instead of quoting someone who knows little.



Only if Catholics can provide an answer to my questions.

Parker[/quote]

Saint Paul to the Bereans: "Christ was born of a Virgin. Look it up for yourselves."

Bereans to Paul: "It don't say 'virgin'. It says 'young woman'. Whaddaya tryin' to pull here?"