Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
www.oca.org
The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary
The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary: After the Ascension of the Lord, the Mother of God remained in the care of the Apostle John the Theologian, and during his journeys She lived at the home of his parents, near the Mount of Olives. She was a source of consolation and…
This is an interesting read my friend:
The Assumption of Mary in History | Catholic Answers
Discover the scriptural and historical evidence behind the Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary. Explore the Faith from its earliest days. catholic.comwww.catholic.com
"We have known for some time that there were widespread “Transitus Stories” that date from the sixth century that teach Mary’s glorious Assumption." I have no problem with this. I have a problem that they started in the sixth century.
"If the pope had genuinely condemned the teaching of the Assumption, great saints and defenders of orthodoxy such as St. Gregory and later St. John Damascene would not have taught it." Based on what, exactly?
"Further, we would have found other writers condemning this teaching as it became more and more popular throughout the world." That is to assume the church cannot err. I do not believe that.
"what some believe to be a fourth-century homily on the prophet Simeon and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem, which asserts Mary is “immortal to the present time through him who had his abode in her and who assumed and raised her above the higher regions.”" What some believe is not persuasive in the least.
"Indeed, the Church even to this day has not decided definitively the matter of whether Mary died or not, though at the level of the Ordinary Magisterium it does teach that Mary died" Which I am sure with enough time, the Catholic Church will in fact have a dogma for that as well
"In fact, it appears they were teaching Mary never died at all. This would be in keeping with John of Thessalonica, Timothy of Jerusalem, and others who taught this among Christians. However, these women were taking Mary and the Assumption to the extreme by worshiping her." Do you have any idea what this looks like? It looks like Catholics want to say that if the assumption of Mary wasn't true then there would be people condemning it. But when someone (Epiphanius) does condemn it, they, what appears to me, try and rewrite history.
"He will elsewhere clarify the fact that he is not certain, and no one is, at least not definitively so, about whether or not she died. But he never says the same about the Assumption itself." This seems like an argument from silence.
In conclusion, the stories of Mary's assumption do not begin until the sixth century. That is perhaps four centuries removed from the event with no conclusive evidence that Mary was, as in, a fact, assumed into heaven. So why did the Pope make this an Ex-Cathedra dogma? It is not based on the evidence, but there was a different motive for it. That is beyond problematic if you ask me.
But Catholics and Orthodox folks can believe what they want. I'm not here to make them Protestant. I just hope you can see how this issue alone prevents me from being Catholic or Orthodox.
There are a couple of fairly early references given, but I haven't yet had the time to look them up to confirm their existence. No guarantee that I'll be able to find then online either.
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.
Do you believe everything in the Bible on "historical grounds" or do you believe it because you have faith it is true?
www.jpost.com
Do you believe everything in the Bible on "historical grounds" or do you believe it because you have faith it is true?
Have you got any historical data (apart from single Biblical references which were probably written down years and centuries in some cases) for Elijah being taken up into heaven (he was "assumed" into heaven we might note); a burning bush speaking to Moses; the Red Sea (or Reed Sea) parting at Moses command; a pot of fire passing between two halves of a slaughtered animal in front of Abraham; Samson slaughtering a thousand(?) Phillistines with a donkey's jawbone: Jonah surviving for days inside a whale or huge fish; a woman marrying seven men who all died before they could consummate the marriage; or manna falling from heaven?
No, you haven't - there's not one ounce of historical proof of any of these things, but you believe them because you believe all Scripture is "inspired" (whatever that really means - it's beyond me why God wanted to 'inspire' the endless genealogies in some of the books in the Torah, or why we claim they are inspired).
In short you believe because you've got faith. Don't try to claim you've got historical proof for it all because you don't. Archaelogists don't even have a shred of evidence for the "Exodus".
The Exodus: Does archaeology have a say? | The Jerusalem Post
The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.
And we've got faith that Mary, "full of grace" and the "Mother of God" to boot was "assumed into heaven".
Moses was "assumed" as his body was never found. Elijah was allegedly taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot so he was "assumed".
Both of them turned up bodily at the transfiguration, and were recognised by Peter, James and John. And Mary has also been turning up regularly from time to time in bodily form eg. Fatima.
As my old Protesant pastor said "There's been a lot of them" (Marian apparitions) and in his opinion they were ".. a judgement on a divided Church".
