The Early Church is the Catholic Church
- Thread starter Thursday
- Start date
Jesus appointed the leaders of the Church and gave them his authority. He told the rest of us to obey those who are over us in the Lord.
At what point do you think it was OK to reject the successors of the apostles and to follow our own judgments and interpretations of scripture?
Upvote
0
I will look into revelation. However, the assumption of Elijah was witnessed by Elisha. I assume the assumption of Enoch was witnessed because it was documented in Genesis. The ascension of Jesus was witnessed by many. However, the assumption of Mary has no witnesses. Some believe St. Thomas witnessed it but it is unknown. It still does not change the fact that all the books in the NT were written possibly decades after the supposed "assumption " yet there is absolutely no mention of it anywhere. So all catholics have to go off of is "we can't find any remains so she must have been assumed into heaven". Possible in theory, hardly enough evidence to declare it excathedra to be true.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
There is a lot of evidence. It is called human testimony.
Why would anyone make something like that up? It serves no purpose.
Here's a good summary of some of the evidence:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-assumption-of-mary-in-history
Upvote
0
What human testemony? Who where the witnesses who testified to the assumption of Mary? Why would someone make something like that up? Duno, probably the same reasons why indulgences were made up. I honestly believe it to be an "ad hoc" explanation to justify the RCC'S theology.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
rakovsky
Newbie
Protestants are like RCS who started whittling down the faith, disbelieving some supernatural things, simplifying Church, disbelieving alot of things not in the bible, some things in the Bible too like holy oil, although Lutherans and Anglicans still use holy oil.
It's a natural process corresponding to the development of western society. I think it meant some good doubts about some RC inventions too like papal supremacy. It had some good sides and bad ones. Calvin was no saint. He may have been a psychopath towards opponents like Servetus. But the RC inquisition was bad too. The Anglicans had an Anti Catholic Inquisition.
Good and bad on both sides.
It's a natural process corresponding to the development of western society. I think it meant some good doubts about some RC inventions too like papal supremacy. It had some good sides and bad ones. Calvin was no saint. He may have been a psychopath towards opponents like Servetus. But the RC inquisition was bad too. The Anglicans had an Anti Catholic Inquisition.
Good and bad on both sides.
Upvote
0
Here's a good summary of some of the evidence:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-assumption-of-mary-in-history
Upvote
0
rakovsky
Newbie
Hi Jason.
indulgences were made up by RCs to get cash, if you are a skeptic.
But earlier Christians taught Assumption without such a cash benefit.
If you are a skeptic, the explanation is that early Christians made up supernatural fantasies. This is the motivation behind protestant skepticism of the assumption , it's supernatural. If the story was only that she died in jerusalem, but it's not in 5he bible, no one would care or ask Who saw her die in Jerusalem?
Upvote
0
I read it. It basically says that the only evidence the RCC has is that there are two empty tombs and no relics or remains and no witnesses. The only thing they have is the possibility of "sacred tradition" that was orally passed down through the centuries and we see how well that worked out given the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split in 1054. I also might add that the earliest know documents are written after Emperor Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church. Which supports my theory that the motive of these "embellishments" of Mary were either as a result of inconsistencies in said oral "sacred traditions" or a means to attract Roman pagans into the folds of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Why is it pertinent how or when or where Mary died? Yes she is the mother of our Lord. Yes, she was the one God's chose and yes, she was virtuous.
But she also married and had other children. This would then make her very human like most other mothers, besides her obvious virtues.
Upvote
0
The importance is simply telling the truth. Why is it important that John the Baptist was the cousin of Jesus?
Mary did not have other children.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-marys-perpetual-virginity
Upvote
0
The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.
So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.
Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus' mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If you think I am going to read every Catholic article you post, you are not being realistic. The Bible shows that James was the brother of Jesus.
Clearly Catholic tradition has overthrown the Bible. That is another reason why the RCC is not the true church.
Upvote
0
James was the cousin of Jesus, not the brother. The word brother used in scripture is the same word used for cousin. His mother was another Mary.
If you don't want to do the research and learn the truth, then that is your decision.
Here's an excerpt from the article above specifically about yoru point:
Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four "brothers of the Lord" mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: "Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother."
Notice, the "James" of whom Paul was speaking was both a "brother of the Lord" and an "apostle." There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a "son of Zebedee." He most likely would not be the "James" referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.
Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this "James" was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as "apostles" in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going "up to Jerusalem" to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he "should be running or had run in vain." It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about "apostles" (proper), or "the twelve."
Upvote
0
rakovsky
Newbie
Jason,
The beliefs that EOS and RCS share like the Assumption come from the 30 to 350 ad period before Constantine. The RC beliefs unique to RCS like indulgences are their own inventions in the west, typically after that time.
There were a range of beliefs and practices of Christians in 30 to 200 ad that aren't in the bible. Typically the ones that involve the supernatural were things that Reformed Protestants began objecting to like communicating with the saints who died after Acts. Actually exorcisms and holy oil and relic miracles are in the Bible, but Reformed Protestants began rejecting them too, IMO actually because they were supernatural. Reformed Protestants are kind of a late renaissance era skeptic version of RCs.
Upvote
0
If we want to talk about "motive", I think it boils down to pride. The Roman Catholic Church wants to save face. Rather that confessing that their theology was flawed, they instead made "ad hoc" explanations in order to justify and rationalize their flawed theology. As a result, more flawed theology was built upon said "ad hoc" rationalizations. Which is why you now find things like the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You have already admitted that you believe "indulgences " were made up in order for the church to get money. Why then is it not possible for other doctrines and dogmas be made up for other reasons such as power, reputation, control, ect...
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
Similar threads
