Revelation 12 and James Swan

[thorbeckes]

Funny how they try to defend this fairytale that Mary was assumed into heaven. When the early church fathers ( who they say is the Roman Catholic Church) for 700 years new nothing of this fairytale.

[thorbeckes]

Really? So why are you using Sola Scriptura to interpret Rev 12? As you said there is no infallible interpretation from the Catholic Church for Rev 12. So you use your own private interpretation. And that is Sola Scriptura. So you contradict yourself, and are caught in your own inconsist fallible use of Sloa Scriptura. You say Sola Sriptura is an untenable unbiblical practice, but you use it to interpret Rev 12. Circular reasoning won't work! An unconsistant argument is a failed argument.

[gnrhead]

I am not using SOLA SCRIPTURA to interpret anything. Sola Scriptura would in turn mean that I deny the existence of the AUTHORITY of tradition which I do not. What I am doing is exegeting a passage. Since you cannot listen to the fact that I do NOT do combox arguments, your next COMBOX post will get you a BAN. Sorry that you're too thick to understand.

[thorbeckes]

So you can not show me the infallible interpretation from the infallible Magisterium of Rome? And therefore resort to Sola Scriptura. Hmmm!

[gnrhead]

There is no infallible Interpretation of Magisterium of "Rome". I don't quite understand. You seemingly don't understand Catholic terminology. As such, Sola Scriptura is also an untenable unbiblical practice. If you have any further questions send them to my Youtube inbox. I ask kindly. I don't have time in combox debating, nor do I do combox debates. If you have a serious question, send it to my inbox and I will answer it as soon as I can. GOD BLESS!

[thorbeckes]

So please show me (post) the infallible teaching ( interpretation) from Rome on Rev 12.

[gnrhead]

Seemingly misunderstanding Catholic teaching is in your reportoire. Being a Catholic we are free to interpret just about ANY verse in the Bible as long as it's not opposed to the faith and those verses already defined formally. As such many verses have varying interpretations attached to them. GOD BLESS

[thorbeckes]

Your wasting time time on your view of Rev. The problem is the church of Rome forbids your fallible personal interpretation. As Vatican 11 Council says "" But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, wheteher written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church. So your personal interpretation is irrelivant.

[gnrhead]

You are quite incorrect and maybe you should educate yourself on Catholic dogma. The Catholic Church FORBIDS any interpretation that does NOT coincide with that already INFALLIBLY declined. As such, my interpretation of this passage is NOT diametrically opposed to anything and rather supports the Pope's proclamation of the Ancient Church's declaration on the Assumption of Mary. I hope you can see how YOUR misunderstanding of Catholic teaching should be rectified. I can recommend a few books...

[MilhamaH777]

No scholarship, No material arguments, No class and No truth...

[gnrhead]

Ahhh yes. No scholarship. Which is why I am the one espousing new doctrines and going against the Ancient faith. But I lack scholarship...right.

[labarum312]

He says this because he is a parrot. He has one subscription - to James White's videos - and presumably looks at his blog as well. James told him you have no scholarship or material arguments on his blog yesterday and now he is dutifully echoing the new matra. Polly wanna cracker? :)

[thorbeckes]

you lack scholarship.

[stinkybonjour]

and james swan has scholarship lol

watch the second part of this video and refute it instead of saying william has none

[stinkybonjour]

lol i heard james swan audio n ur write he doesnt even respond to your argument.

[Catholikoi]

James Swan is a Light Weight, itching to build a ministry on lies. Hey James White has done it, why not emulate him, and make money in the process.?

[the13thof12]

So your refutation of Eric Svendsen is basically to call him stupid. That's marvellous.

[gnrhead]

MY refutation of Eric Svendsen is a 350 page book tearing to shreds his arguments in his book on Mary. I haven't released the book yet, but you can find his laughable thesis of HEOS HOU torn apart by my fellow Catholic Legater John Pacheco. My other dismissal of Svendsen is his utter lack of actual credentials. Says a lot about his character. Put yourself forth as a DOCTOR and not know anything significant in your field

[the13thof12]

I am familiar with the claims against svendsen's academic accomplishments, but I think they are meaningless. He did the work and earned what he earned. I don't care what you and Johnny P think of it. It's a red herring.

[the13thof12]

A lot of problems with your presentation, but I thought it especially humerous that you took issue with the use of the word "Rome" to refer to the Catholic Church. Yes there are many rites, but they are all subject to the Roman Pontiff. So the term, as it is used, is appropriate.

[gnrhead]

You are incorrect. The many rites that exist whereas they are subject to the Pontiff they are not "ROME". Rome is a pejorative term that doesn't take into consideration that the Catholic Church is NOT centered or RELEGATED to Rome. As such I laugh when people ignorantly use the term.

[the13thof12]

Miss the point much?

[XSC3]

I'll second what thenubbintom said.

[thenubbintom]

Hey William, welcome back. Sorry to hear about your loss. You're in my thoughts and prayers.