Immaculate Conception of Mary by her mother??, Assumption of Mary into heaven??

[concretecamper]

What would be 'some'?

See post #10

ok well then you were successful.

Umm, ok then


I see you are trying your best to avoid discussing your hipocracy.

 

[BobRyan]

I see you are trying your best to avoid discussing your hipocracy.

Aside from your accusation that implies Christ was in error in Mark 7:6-13 to reject the traditions of his nation church infallibly started by God at Sinai - what point did you make?

 

[BobRyan]

..
In any case - what is your explanation for no scripture on that and no reference to it for 300+ years?

see post 17

Does not address the question

 

[concretecamper]

Aside from your accusation that implies Christ was in error in Mark 7:6-13 to reject the traditions of his nation church infallibly started by God at Sinai - what point did you make?

That you/your OP display(s) hypocrisy. That's all.

 

[sandman]

No it wouldn’t, because it is referring specifically to the Ascension of the Risen Christ, but people had in the past been taken up into Heaven without tasting death, for example, St. Elijah, or after death, for example, St. Moses.

The only source given that people use to say Moses went to heaven is the transfiguration of Jesus.

The Bible clearly says Moses died …which means you must adlib into what the Word declares to put Moses in heaven …The Word declares what was seen on the mount was a vision not spirit beings.

Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

It doesn’t matter what Jhn 3:13 references …it is still a statement of Truth….

There is no one in heaven save Jesus the son of God …God, the Father of Jesus, and spirit being angels. Anything else is derived from religious beliefs that do not equate to Truth. Anytime we go beyond the Truth of the Word of God we are in religion, which is what man decides God should have said, but didn’t…..It’s what man thinks of God.



Elijah …did not go to heaven..... He was moved from one place to another…. There are 3 heavens described in the Bible….. atmospheric (anything above the earthly platform), Celestial (space) ….and where Jesus God and the angels reside.


(2Ki 2:11) Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind into heaven (which is anyplace above earth) God moved him from one place to another that is why they kept looking for him….but eventually he died.

It would be difficult for Elijah to send a letter to Jehoram, King of Judah …from heaven 11 years after being taken up in the whirlwind.

2Ch 21:12-15 &19


King Jehoram (also called Joram) King Ahab’s son begin his reign in Israel the same year Elijah was removed by the whirlwind (2 Kings 1:17)

2Ki 8:16 And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. 17) Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.



The King of Judah was Jehoshaphat and his son's name what is Jehoram, also. Jehoram The king of Judah, begin to rain in the 5th year of the rain of Israel’s king Jehoram.

Neither Jehoram king of Israel…. nor Jehoram the king of Judah, walked with God.

2Ch 21:5 says that Jehoram king of Judah was 32 when he began to rule and that he reigned for eight years if you add the five years that Israel’s king reigned to the eight years of the king of Judah's reign you get 13 years. Judas king died 13 years after Elijah was removed by the whirlwind.

 

[FenderTL5]

Does not address the question

It's there. Do I need to edit it into bold print?

 

[BobRyan]

..
In any case - what is your explanation for no scripture on that and no reference to it for 300+ years?

see post 17

Does not address the question

It's there. Do I need to edit it into bold print?

In any case - what is your explanation for no scripture on that and no reference to it for 300+ years?

Do I need to put the question in "Bold text"??

hint
1. If you had a scripture you would have posted it by now
2. If you had a 1st, second or 3rd century document showing that all Christians believed in the two ideas posted in the OP - you have had plenty of opportunity to actually post it.

So far all we have is someone claiming that the late 4th century/ early 5th century statements of Augustine hint at something that might allow it.

 

[The Liturgist]

The only source given that people use to say Moses went to heaven is the transfiguration of Jesus.

The Bible clearly says Moses died …which means you must adlib into what the Word declares to put Moses in heaven …The Word declares what was seen on the mount was a vision not spirit beings.

Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

It doesn’t matter what Jhn 3:13 references …it is still a statement of Truth….

There is no one in heaven save Jesus the son of God …God, the Father of Jesus, and spirit being angels. Anything else is derived from religious beliefs that do not equate to Truth. Anytime we go beyond the Truth of the Word of God we are in religion, which is what man decides God should have said, but didn’t…..It’s what man thinks of God.



Elijah …did not go to heaven..... He was moved from one place to another…. There are 3 heavens described in the Bible….. atmospheric (anything above the earthly platform), Celestial (space) ….and where Jesus God and the angels reside.


(2Ki 2:11) Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind into heaven (which is anyplace above earth) God moved him from one place to another that is why they kept looking for him….but eventually he died.

It would be difficult for Elijah to send a letter to Jehoram, King of Judah …from heaven 11 years after being taken up in the whirlwind.

2Ch 21:12-15 &19


King Jehoram (also called Joram) King Ahab’s son begin his reign in Israel the same year Elijah was removed by the whirlwind (2 Kings 1:17)

2Ki 8:16 And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. 17) Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.



The King of Judah was Jehoshaphat and his son's name what is Jehoram, also. Jehoram The king of Judah, begin to rain in the 5th year of the rain of Israel’s king Jehoram.

Neither Jehoram king of Israel…. nor Jehoram the king of Judah, walked with God.

2Ch 21:5 says that Jehoram king of Judah was 32 when he began to rule and that he reigned for eight years if you add the five years that Israel’s king reigned to the eight years of the king of Judah's reign you get 13 years. Judas king died 13 years after Elijah was removed by the whirlwind.

The Orthodox and most Catholics say the Theotokos died, hence the word “Dormition” so her being taken up is most like what happened to the Holy Prophet Moses. We also do not know if Elijah survived the whirlwind or was even still vital when taken up, the text on this point being inconclusive.

 

[concretecamper]

I just now visited Our Lady Star of the Sea in Cape May NJ. What beautiful Images

 

[concretecamper]

Coincidence?

 

[FenderTL5]

what is your explanation for no scripture on that and no reference to it for 300+ years?

..1st, second or 3rd century document showing that all Christians believed in the two ideas posted in the OP..

Alright. You have 1 question but I addressed 4 items in your previous posts.
Starting with the two ideas in the OP which are:

Immaculate Conception
Assumption of Mary into heaven

Regarding Immaculate Conception, in post 17 I said, (1) "the Immaculate Conception as taught in the west is unnecessary in Orthodox teaching"
I see no need to address this further.

Regarding Assumption of Mary, there's two parts here.
Also in post 17 I said, (2) "the Orthodox Feast of the Dormition differs somewhat from the Latin Feast of Assumption."

However the entire reason for my post was a response to your comment,

BobRyan said:
If the Orthodox church teaches the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven - please provide a reference

In post 17 I gave the following reference, (3)
"a small section from the Matins service August 15 every year (Kathisma I):

Ἀναβόησον Δαυΐδ, τίς ἡ παροῦσα
Ἑορτή; Ἣν ἀνύμνησα φησίν, ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ
τῶν Ψαλμῶν, ὡς θυγατέρα θεόπαιδα καὶ
Παρθένον, μετέστησεν αὐτήν, πρὸς τὰς
ἐκεῖθεν μονάς, Χριστὸς ὁ ἐξ αὐτῆς, ἄνευ
σπορᾶς γεννηθείς· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο χαίρουσι,
μητέρες καὶ θυγατέρες, καὶ νύμφαι Χριστοῦ,
βοῶσαι· Χαῖρε, ἡ μεταστᾶσα, πρὸς τὰ ἄνω
βασίλεια.

Prophet David, tell us please, what do
we celebrate today? * "The Assumption of
the one, whom in the Psalms I extolled * as
daughter and Virgin and the Mother of God,
* when Christ, who without seed was born of
her, himself * transported her to heaven, to the
mansions there. * And on this day especially
mothers, * daughters, and brides of Christ
salute her with joy, * 'Rejoice, O Lady! You
were transported * to the royal courts on
high!'"

Again, and already addressed in Post 17, The Orthodox view of Dormition differs from the Latin west. There is a bodily assumption however, it is after death as others have also pointed out. There's more in the matins, however that small section literally says, "assumption."

Which brings us to (4) in post 17 I said, "There's evidence of the Orthodox Dormition being celebrated in the Church in Jerusalem as early as the 1st century, although it was not added to the church-wide liturgical calendar until later."

Since post 17 was unsatisfactory for you:
In the first century, Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her "Falling-Asleep." In the second century, the account of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven is found in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis. In the fourth century, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus refers to the "Falling Asleep" of the Mother of God. In the fifth century, St. Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, told Byzantine Empress Pulcheria: "Although there is no account of the circumstances of Her death in Holy Scripture, we know about them from the most ancient and credible Tradition."

The accounts, including those from the 1st and 2nd century, are consistent with the Ante-Nicene Fathers The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary. (linkage to CCEL ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ageby Philip Schaff)

As an aside, Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single account in Holy Scripture of any of the Apostles, or Christ's inner circle having passed away. Exception, Lazarus whom He raised from the dead.. and even there the Church has records of his life post being raised and his second passing as well.

 

[BobRyan]

The Orthodox and most Catholics say the Theotokos died, hence the word “Dormition” so her being taken up is most like what happened to the Holy Prophet Moses.

That is their teaching but they have not NT writers claiming that such a thing happened and they have no Christian writers saying it is the belief of the church for the first 300+ years.

Which means we have no basis to claim this was a NT teaching, or a tradition of first or second century Christians.

We also do not know if Elijah survived the whirlwind or was even still vital when taken up

We could "imagine" that we are viewing "an execution of Elijah" in 2 Kings 2, a "death sentence" but it goes against the entire theme of that chapter where the only reference is to "Taken up to heaven" (and Heb 11 says Enoch was taken up - without experiencing death)

2 Kings 2:1 "Lord was about to bring Elijah up by a whirlwind to heaven"

You appear to suggest that we add "and then execute him in heaven" as if that is the meaning of the text.. when clearly that is not the most natural reading of the text. It looks like a massive bend-and-wrench of the text to insert your suggestion at that point.

, the text on this point being inconclusive.

that would be placing wayyy too much weight on your speculation to the contrary of the natural reading of the text.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Good article here regarding the historic context of the non Biblical beliefs of both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption/Dormition of Mary. As mentioned in the article, these teachings were originally not Dogma in the Catholic Church, but became such by Papal decree. We still observe the feast of St. Mary, mother of our Lord and are free to hold or reject the Dormition/Assumption. The immaculate conception is a bit more "bony" for us.

The Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary — Gottesdienst

August 15 is celebrated as the Assumption of Mary by the Roman Catholic Church. This is the belief that Mary was conceived in such a way as to protect her from original sin, which enabled her womb to be a sterile, holy environment in which to conceive our Lord. Since this isn’t taught in Scripture

www.gottesdienst.org

 

[BobRyan]

Alright. You have 1 question but I addressed 4 items in your previous posts.
Starting with the two ideas in the OP which are:

Regarding Immaculate Conception, in post 17 I said, (1) "the Immaculate Conception as taught in the west is unnecessary in Orthodox teaching"
I see no need to address this further.

Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"(The Immaculate Conception) is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. [2] Debated by medieval theologians, it was not defined as a dogma until 1854"


Dogma
Dogma in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding".[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Church's Magisterium asserts that it exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging Catholics to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.[2]

The faithful are only required to accept a teaching as dogma if the Catholic Church clearly and specifically identifies them as dogmas.[1]

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"(The Immaculate Conception) is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. [2] Debated by medieval theologians, it was not defined as a dogma until 1854"


Dogma
Dogma in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding".[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:




The faithful are only required to accept a teaching as dogma if the Catholic Church clearly and specifically identifies them as dogmas.[1]

So, what's the point? I see just another attempt to denigrate the Catholic Church. They know what their Church teaches and why, and accept it for if they did not; they would not be Catholics would they?

 

[FenderTL5]

Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"(The Immaculate Conception) is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. [2] Debated by medieval theologians, it was not defined as a dogma until 1854"

Dogma
Dogma in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding".[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The faithful are only required to accept a teaching as dogma if the Catholic Church clearly and specifically identifies them as dogmas.[1]

and it's still unnecessary in the Orthodox understanding.

 

[BobRyan]

and it's still unnecessary in the Orthodox understanding.

That is my understanding as well.

 

[BobRyan]

Alright. You have 1 question but I addressed 4 items in your previous posts.
Starting with the two ideas in the OP which are:

Regarding Immaculate Conception, in post 17 I said, (1) "the Immaculate Conception as taught in the west is unnecessary in Orthodox teaching"
I see no need to address this further.

Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"(The Immaculate Conception) is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. [2] Debated by medieval theologians, it was not defined as a dogma until 1854"


Dogma
Dogma in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding".[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Church's Magisterium asserts that it exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging Catholics to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.[2]

The faithful are only required to accept a teaching as dogma if the Catholic Church clearly and specifically identifies them as dogmas.[1]

================== to which we get this curious reply ==================

So, what's the point? I see just another attempt to denigrate the Catholic Church. They know what their Church teaches and why, and accept it for if they did not; they would not be Catholics would they?

Someone stated that it was not a required belief for them.. I pointed out that according to their own documents it is.

It appears you are saying that to quote their own statement on their own belief is to "denigrate"??

 

[FenderTL5]

Someone stated that it was not a required belief for them.. I pointed out that according to their own documents it is.

So why are you quoting me instead of that "someone?"

 

[BobRyan]

So why are you quoting me instead of that "someone?"

Because sadly - you said this --

"Regarding Immaculate Conception, in post 17 I said, (1) "the Immaculate Conception as taught in the west is unnecessary in Orthodox teaching" I see no need to address this further. "

which makes it appear that either you do not know what the Catholic church teaches or why we would notice what they are teaching, or you do know it but you don't think we should be paying any attention to any denomination other than the Eastern Orthodox church.

I wanted to assume you were not doing the latter. Giving the benefit of the doubt to you.