Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Since the same Church that defined the Trinity belives that Mary was taken to heaven body and soul.

1. Actually, the Bishop of Rome didn't so much as even attend a single meeting of the Council of Nicea. Of the 220 participants, only 3 were from the West. If ANY denomination can take "credit" for such (and I'd disagree that any can), it would be the Greek Orthodox. And it wouldn't have happened at all except that the Roman Emperor - Constantine - made it happen (not the Bishop of Rome, and thus any proto Catholic Denomination).


2. I disagree with your assumption that an institution is EITHER 100% always right or 100% always wrong. I may agree with the Democratic Party about something, but that doesn't mean that I regard it as infallible/unaccountable, whoever hears it hears Jesus, that it is absolutely essential for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Chairman of the DNC. I find your argument ABSURD that since Council of Nicea did well with the Trinity, THEREFORE the Catholic Denomination MUST be infallible/unaccountable in 1950 when it declared the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Amylisa]

Absolutely beautiful post, Sphinx777!

 

[Amylisa]

And isn't the baby Jesus the same Jesus the same that is sitting at the right hand of the Father.

Was he not born?

Last Sunday I was sitting in Mass and a lady was holding a baby. I assumed it was the baby's mother. I was wrong. It was the baby's grandmother. The baby's mother came in later. As soon as the baby saw his mother he smiled and opened up his arm towards her. He wanted to be held by her.

I couldn't help but feel awed by that moment, because Jesus as a baby did the same thing.

Imagine God wanting to be held by His mother.

Peace

I know. Jesus' humility is so profound. Absolutely amazing.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The earliest extant discourse on the feast of the Dormition affirms that the assumption of Mary comes from the East at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century. The Transitus literature is highly significant as the origin of the assumption teaching and it is important that we understand the nature of these writings.

AS there was but ONE single Church - East, West, North or South...its still believed in the Church even if she may have schismed.

Actually yes it is the role of others to disprove a Christian Tradition. Which is held by all three of the Ancient Churches.

Good luck!!!


According you.

Peace

false. The Trinitarian TERMINOLOGY is not in Scripture anywhere. The trinitarian evidences are there for the reading.

.

The importance of Mary is in scriptures.

So if Mary was so important why would He leave her body on earth and yet took Enoch and Elijah and Moses?

So scriptures confirms that God does indeed take bodies to Heaven and its not some unthinkable thing to do.

Mary's body was and is no where on earth to be found.
The tomb that briefly held her body was empty.

No one either claimed her body nor tried to make profit from it.

Moses body was not found either. BUT Jesus prooved to His Apostles when He was in the state of being Transfigured that Moses was with Him....and Elijah.

YOU may need things spelled out down to the line, but then i should think you are barking up the wrong tree in scriptures.
Scriptures use parallels....hidden secrets and are not fully disclosed.

Jesus says we MUST have faith. Where is the faith if we question every single historical Tradition [Apostolic] believed by both laity who passed this down as well as the teachers of the Church?

YES - her body assumed into Heaven is in scriptures, lest we should ever think Moses, Elijah or Henoch held more importance than His own Mother.

Henoch who we are told virtually nothing about - would procure a better death and resurrection than Mary???

This is really quite amazing to me. We have avowedly Trinitarian Christians who insist that their trinitarian beliefs have no basis in the Word of God. Why? In order to substantiate their Marian dogmas which, by common agreement among all here, are most assuredly not in the Word of God. To denigrate the doctrine of the Trinity to the level of the fables surrounding Mary is absurd in the extreme.

As for biblical evidence of the trinity there are a multitude of scriptures, not the least being John 1:1-12 which establishes the deity of Christ. If Christ is God, according to that passage and there is only one God, then either God, the Father, does not exist (despite all Old Testament scriptures to the contrary) or there is one God with at least two natures - Father and Son. See also Colossians 1:15-22.

Romans 8:9 identifies the Holy Spirit as being both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. If He is the Spirit of both, and there is but one God, then we have established that God is one being with three persons - a trinity, as we would call it.

You cannot say that you would see the defined Trinity in scriptures...without Tradition.
Without a teaching authority, the same teaching authority who points out [scripturally] and with evidence of a non existent body - that Mary did indeed rise to Heaven.

And Marian doctrines are not only Tradition - but she herself said she was exalted by God.

What does that mean?
And why is her own proclamation discounted as though we have nothing about Mary?

I should think her own words in her announcement to Elizabeth would be plenty of proof.

No one ever brings up her exclamations.

Jesus is no longer a baby so why do you post these pictures that He is? He is not even on the cross any more. He sits on the right hand side of the Father.

You celebrate His birth?
Do we not have a need for Him to be a baby in order to live and die for us after being a Teacher?

Nativity scenes remind us of the great gift from God - Himself.

So i am confused as to the point this has made.
God Bless.

 

[Amylisa]

Wonderful post, WarriorAngel!

I've posted this in a few places today. I just love it, it's so beautiful.
And it fits with the topic.

 

[bbbbbbb]

AS there was but ONE single Church - East, West, North or South...its still believed in the Church even if she may have schismed.




The importance of Mary is in scriptures.

So if Mary was so important why would He leave her body on earth and yet took Enoch and Elijah and Moses?

So scriptures confirms that God does indeed take bodies to Heaven and its not some unthinkable thing to do.

Mary's body was and is no where on earth to be found.
The tomb that briefly held her body was empty.

No one either claimed her body nor tried to make profit from it.

Moses body was not found either. BUT Jesus prooved to His Apostles when He was in the state of being Transfigured that Moses was with Him....and Elijah.

YOU may need things spelled out down to the line, but then i should think you are barking up the wrong tree in scriptures.
Scriptures use parallels....hidden secrets and are not fully disclosed.

Jesus says we MUST have faith. Where is the faith if we question every single historical Tradition [Apostolic] believed by both laity who passed this down as well as the teachers of the Church?

YES - her body assumed into Heaven is in scriptures, lest we should ever think Moses, Elijah or Henoch held more importance than His own Mother.

Henoch who we are told virtually nothing about - would procure a better death and resurrection than Mary???




You cannot say that you would see the defined Trinity in scriptures...without Tradition.
Without a teaching authority, the same teaching authority who points out [scripturally] and with evidence of a non existent body - that Mary did indeed rise to Heaven.

And Marian doctrines are not only Tradition - but she herself said she was exalted by God.

What does that mean?
And why is her own proclamation discounted as though we have nothing about Mary?

I should think her own words in her announcement to Elizabeth would be plenty of proof.

No one ever brings up her exclamations.


You celebrate His birth?
Do we not have a need for Him to be a baby in order to live and die for us after being a Teacher?

Nativity scenes remind us of the great gift from God - Himself.

So i am confused as to the point this has made.
God Bless.

The body of Adolph Hitler is nowhere to be found!! The bunker which once held him and Eva Braun is now empty!! That must mean, according to your reasoning that they both were assumed into heaven, being baptized Catholics both. There are literally hundreds of millions if not billions of bodies of individuals that are nowhere to be found. That does not mean that all of them were assumed into heaven even as Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were. I have no reason to think that, apart from these three individuals who are clearly stated in scripture to have entered heaven apart from death, that anyone else ever did so. Given the fact that the New Testament was written from ca. AD 50 to ca. AD 90 you would think that at least one of the writers might have at least alluded to such a miraculous event.

I am still awaiting any biblical evidence for the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her assumption.

Sadly for you, there are multitudes of Christians outside of your Church who hold fast to the same Trinitarian understanding as you have, but without receiving it through your Tradition, but having derived it solely from a study of the Bible. That there are others who reject the Trinity is without question, yet their rejection is typically based not on the Bible, but on a rejection of the Church, believing that any and all Traditions, including the Trinity are to be rejected. It is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As you may recall, the Marian dogmas were not declared infallible until the twentieth century. Why the delay? In fact, in the EOC these are not considered infallible dogmas as in the RCC. These dogmas have little or no historical record prior to the Middle ages. Thus, they find no place in the New Testament, having been developed much later.

I celebrate the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ as He commanded us to do in the breaking of bread. No where in the New Testament do we see it commanded to celebrate His birth nor do we find any such celebration by the early Christians as recorded in the New Testament.

God bless.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Wonderful post, WarriorAngel!

I've posted this in a few places today. I just love it, it's so beautiful.
And it fits with the topic.

That's gorgeous.

The body of Adolph Hitler is nowhere to be found!! The bunker which once held him and Eva Braun is now empty!! That must mean, according to your reasoning that they both were assumed into heaven, being baptized Catholics both. There are literally hundreds of millions if not billions of bodies of individuals that are nowhere to be found. That does not mean that all of them were assumed into heaven even as Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were. I have no reason to think that, apart from these three individuals who are clearly stated in scripture to have entered heaven apart from death, that anyone else ever did so. Given the fact that the New Testament was written from ca. AD 50 to ca. AD 90 you would think that at least one of the writers might have at least alluded to such a miraculous event.

I am still awaiting any biblical evidence for the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her assumption.

Sadly for you, there are multitudes of Christians outside of your Church who hold fast to the same Trinitarian understanding as you have, but without receiving it through your Tradition, but having derived it solely from a study of the Bible. That there are others who reject the Trinity is without question, yet their rejection is typically based not on the Bible, but on a rejection of the Church, believing that any and all Traditions, including the Trinity are to be rejected. It is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As you may recall, the Marian dogmas were not declared infallible until the twentieth century. Why the delay? In fact, in the EOC these are not considered infallible dogmas as in the RCC. These dogmas have little or no historical record prior to the Middle ages. Thus, they find no place in the New Testament, having been developed much later.

I celebrate the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ as He commanded us to do in the breaking of bread. No where in the New Testament do we see it commanded to celebrate His birth nor do we find any such celebration by the early Christians as recorded in the New Testament.

God bless.

Why am i not surprised anyone would even put Mary the Mother of God in the same comparison as someone who was so vile to humanity?

Furthermore, as i said before - if the righteous [I have to point that out apparently] were assumed into Heaven by God, then what makes us think He left His Mother's body to lay corrupted?

Did not St Michael fight over the body of Moses for that reason?

So we can see that the OT tells us that Moses was NOT to be found. BUT we know by the Transfiguration of Jesus that he, like Elijah was taken to Heaven by God...

AND Henoch was taken for being righteous...as was Elijah.

So according to the reasoning behind scriptures and the fact her body [the Mother of God] was no where to be found, and she was righteous, that Jesus did NOT leave His Mother to be corrupted by decay or earth or evil.

Your argument regarding unjust men of ill repute is in no way a sustainable argument.

Hitler's Death and Body Parts

British intelligence commissioned historian
Hugh Trevor Roper to look into this in 1945,
published in book form a year or two later:
finding that he shot himself, his body was burned in the
bunker garden and buried, but later recovered in part
by Russian troops. Later biographers (up to Ian
Kershaw recently) do not disagree in any important
detail. There were 20 years ago various rumours
of a jawbone, tooth, etc. etc. preserved in the
Kremlin, in which no one has shown much interest
lately.

And Hitler's body was apparently accounted for [as per the above disclosure]. rumors to say otherwise seems like a fantasy brought on by men who when someone so infamous as Hitler or feared as Hitler might cause men to contemplate he was still alive somehow and larger than life itself.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Here are some thoughts i would like to add to this subject.


In regards to those who suppose Mary neither descends to earth as a messenger nor was Assumed bodily into Heaven.

The very Tradition you hold to - that scriptures are the only public revelation in absolutes, and thus the Church closing all revelations henceforth [for various reasons i will get into] prooves you must uphold Tradition in order to accept the canons of scriptures. [briefly - the Church closed them so as to ensure all the Churches had the very same canons]

That same Tradition that gave you a closed set of canon on public revelation, has never denigrated private revelation.
In fact, although we see clearly that Jesus Himself appeared with Elijah and Moses tells us something i think most are missing.

Elijah, and Moses were standing in glory... [brightly so as no bleach could have done]
And furthermore, were able to communicate. Speaking to Jesus, as clearly the Apostles testified.

This tells us a few things.
That the bodies are able to descend to earth fully. That they can be seen and they are alive and moving and can communicate with Jesus and that all in all, this PUBLIC REVELATION shows us quite suscinctly that private revelation IS scriptural.

The fact that Moses and Elijah appeared as apparitions - tells us that it is possible [as is all things thru God] that the body from Heaven can be seen by human eyes.

Furthermore, the Church finally made the decision to close public revelation because they felt it prudent.
'THEY' felt it prudent.

Now, these men of the Church, who are usually so denigrated as mere men and unable to be infallible in any respects, are followed with such certainty. [albeit not completely since they kept the duetero's and in 1500 + ad they were removed by certain men outside the Church]

Nevertheless, Pope Clement l was also considered to be added into canon. The Church had to finally decide on the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles [including Paul] specifically for their OWN records of events and as their teaching tool that coincided WITH Tradition for instruction on the deposit of faith laid by the Apostles thru the teaching of Christ.

Mary - is clearly one of the just and favored of God that was assumed into Heaven.
Scriptures tells us she was highly favored [altho even highly favored doesnt even begin to translate the actual greeting - which is so much more than English can translate]

Why do ppl need in some instances things written out in exact forms? .. whereas in other things, they will heed Tradition without question?

Trinity
Hypostatic Union
Incarnation
Canon
Are but a few absolutely held to Traditions of the Church - while the many others that even the schismed Church[es] still uphold altho not in any way meeting in councils anymore - are so denigrated as unscriptural.

The TRUTH dear friends is alluded to in scriptures, the truth is apparent if you choose to understand that Tradition is just as binding as the written.

Without Tradition -[i have said this before] - Christianity could not have continued.
Nor could we possibly understand any of scriptures if it had not been handed down to know and understand thru authorities set up by God.

Please think about this.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In regards to those who suppose Mary neither descends to earth as a messenger nor was Assumed bodily into Heaven.

The very Tradition you hold to - that scriptures are the only public revelation in absolutes, and thus the Church closing all revelations henceforth [for various reasons i will get into] prooves you must uphold Tradition in order to accept the canons of scriptures.

That same Tradition that gave you a closed set of canon on public revelation, has never denigrated private revelation .

1. The church that embraced the Canon knew NOTHING of the Assumption of Mary.

2. Just because one is right about one thing (or even nearly all things) does not mean that it is infallible/unaccountable and/or correct about all things. The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee is probably right about all kinds of things - but that doesn't mean that he MUST therefore be infallible about all things.

In fact, although we see clearly that Jesus Himself appeared with Elijah and Moses tells us something i think most are missing. Elijah, and Moses were standing in glory... [brightly so as no bleach could have done]
And furthermore, were able to communicate. Speaking to Jesus, as clearly the Apostles testified.

Just for you information, Mary is not Elijah or Moses.

This tells us a few things. That the bodies are able to descend to earth fully. That they can be seen and they are alive and moving and can communicate with Jesus and that all in all

I have no clue what your point is, my good friend and unseparated brother... As Scripture declares, "with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE," so if you are attempting to convey that all things are possible, no one (I know of) denies that. It's certainly POSSIBLE that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and lived entirely on tacos - no one denies the theoretical possibilities there. But possible does not equal dogmatically true.

The fact that Moses and Elijah appeared as apparitions - tells us that it is possible [as is all things thru God] that the body from Heaven can be seen by human eyes.

Of course, since ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, it could be that the RCC went apostate and Jesus re-established His Church in the Americas as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - no one denies it's a theoretical possible ("With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.") But I guess I'm just not agreeing with your rubric that if it's POSSIBLE, therefore, it MUST be dogma.

Mary - is clearly one of the just and favored of God that was assumed into Heaven.

"Clearly?"

The TRUTH dear friends is alluded to in scriptures

I suppose that depends on what invisible words you are referencing. IMHO, there's just as much biblical support for Mary being 15 feet tall, having pink hair and living entirely on tacos - and that's also POSSIBLE and that doesn't CONTRADICT Scripture either. Of course, you won't find a word about that in Scripture or the earliest Christian authors, but then you won't for the Assumption of Mary, either. I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, I'm not saying it's HERETICAL, I'm saying it's unsubstantiated - just as I suspect you think Jesus visiting the Americas and re-establishing His Church here is also unsubstantiated.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[jckstraw72]

1. The church that embraced the Canon knew NOTHING of the Assumption of Mary.

you assume that.

2. Just because one is right about one thing (or even nearly all things) does not mean that it is infallible/unaccountable and/or correct about all things. The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee is probably right about all kinds of things - but that doesn't mean that he MUST therefore be infallible about all things.

infallible does not equal unaccountable. you make that up. continually.

Of course, since ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, it could be that the RCC went apostate and Jesus re-established His Church in the Americas as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - no one denies it's a theoretical possible ("With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.") But I guess I'm just not agreeing with your rubric that if it's POSSIBLE, therefore, it MUST be dogma.

acutally its not possible that hte Church would need to be reestablished, since Christ said the Church would remain with the Spirit guiding it into all truth.

 

[WarriorAngel]

1. The church that embraced the Canon knew NOTHING of the Assumption of Mary.

You have proof I guess?

2. Just because one is right about one thing (or even nearly all things) does not mean that it is infallible/unaccountable and/or correct about all things. The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee is probably right about all kinds of things - but that doesn't mean that he MUST therefore be infallible about all things.





Just for you information, Mary is not Elijah or Moses.

No, your right - she is better.

I have no clue what your point is, my good friend and unseparated brother... As Scripture declares, "with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE," so if you are attempting to convey that all things are possible, no one (I know of) denies that. It's certainly POSSIBLE that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and lived entirely on tacos - no one denies the theoretical possibilities there. But possible does not equal dogmatically true.




Of course, since ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, it could be that the RCC went apostate and Jesus re-established His Church in the Americas as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - no one denies it's a theoretical possible ("With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.") But I guess I'm just not agreeing with your rubric that if it's POSSIBLE, therefore, it MUST be dogma.



"Clearly?"




I suppose that depends on what invisible words you are referencing. IMHO, there's just as much biblical support for Mary being 15 feet tall, having pink hair and living entirely on tacos - and that's also POSSIBLE and that doesn't CONTRADICT Scripture either. Of course, you won't find a word about that in Scripture or the earliest Christian authors, but then you won't for the Assumption of Mary, either. I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, I'm not saying it's HERETICAL, I'm saying it's unsubstantiated - just as I suspect you think Jesus visiting the Americas and re-establishing His Church here is also unsubstantiated.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

Its right there in scriptures CJ.
God took up the bodies of His righteous.

IS MARY somehow not righteous?

The fact is, Moses body was assumed disappeared for several years before Christ showed His Apostles that he was in Heaven with Elijah.

BUT no where in Jewish tradition will you ever find them 'know' this without it being seen in the NT.

SO still - they probably do not even know.
Should that matter?

And the Assumption was a Tradition since the time her tomb was empty.
It just wasnt written about until the discussion arose.

AS does occur with Tradition.
In fact the first writings occurred around the time of the canon being put together.

SO having it in writing was moot point in the earliest Church simply because even if someone wrote it, and it got lost, doesnt discount the importance the Church IS in keeping Tradition intact.

No no - the the fact she was assumed - did not pop up later - it was not in writing as of yet, that we know of.
But rest assured it was Tradition. [ie - it carried thru the ages]

you assume that.



infallible does not equal unaccountable. you make that up. continually.



acutally its not possible that hte Church would need to be reestablished, since Christ said the Church would remain with the Spirit guiding it into all truth.

 

[lionroar0]

The body of Adolph Hitler is nowhere to be found!! The bunker which once held him and Eva Braun is now empty!! That must mean, according to your reasoning that they both were assumed into heaven, being baptized Catholics both. There are literally hundreds of millions if not billions of bodies of individuals that are nowhere to be found. That does not mean that all of them were assumed into heaven even as Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were. I have no reason to think that, apart from these three individuals who are clearly stated in scripture to have entered heaven apart from death, that anyone else ever did so. Given the fact that the New Testament was written from ca. AD 50 to ca. AD 90 you would think that at least one of the writers might have at least alluded to such a miraculous event.

Let me see here.

Hitler who was responsible for the killing of millions of people. Most Jews, aged, infirmed, mentally handicaped, physically handicaped, and otherwise did not fit into the perfect race.

Mary Mother of God, who took care of Jesus and was righteous.

It's so obvious He would rather assume Hitler then His mother body and soul into heaven.

What en epiphany. Not!!!

I am still awaiting any biblical evidence for the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her assumption.

And I'm still waiting for biblical evidence of the Trinity.

Sadly for you, there are multitudes of Christians outside of your Church who hold fast to the same Trinitarian understanding as you have, but without receiving it through your Tradition, but having derived it solely from a study of the Bible. That there are others who reject the Trinity is without question, yet their rejection is typically based not on the Bible, but on a rejection of the Church, believing that any and all Traditions, including the Trinity are to be rejected. It is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You are joking right?? The Bible is of the same Tradition as the Trinity.


They must have gotten the idea from somewhere that the Trinity is Biblical and thus found proof positive in the Scriptures, because the word Trinity is not in the Bible. So to read the Bible and say that they found a trinitarian understanding with out the word and a definition is a non sequitor.

As you may recall, the Marian dogmas were not declared infallible until the twentieth century. Why the delay? In fact, in the EOC these are not considered infallible dogmas as in the RCC. These dogmas have little or no historical record prior to the Middle ages. Thus, they find no place in the New Testament, having been developed much later.

the discernment of the Spirit takes time. Sometimes more then others. Why delay the Bible 400yrs?[/quote]

I celebrate the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ as He commanded us to do in the breaking of bread. No where in the New Testament do we see it commanded to celebrate His birth nor do we find any such celebration by the early Christians as recorded in the New Testament.

God bless.

All of heaven celebrated His birth. Also His incarnation is a miracle of salvation history. No incarnation no salvation.

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

You have proof I guess?


No, your right - she is better.

Its right there in scriptures CJ.
God took up the bodies of His righteous.

IS MARY somehow not righteous?

The fact is, Moses body was assumed disappeared for several years before Christ showed His Apostles that he was in Heaven with Elijah.

BUT no where in Jewish tradition will you ever find them 'know' this without it being seen in the NT.

SO still - they probably do not even know.
Should that matter?

And the Assumption was a Tradition since the time her tomb was empty.
It just wasnt written about until the discussion arose.

AS does occur with Tradition.
In fact the first writings occurred around the time of the canon being put together.

SO having it in writing was moot point in the earliest Church simply because even if someone wrote it, and it got lost, doesnt discount the importance the Church IS in keeping Tradition intact.

No no - the the fact she was assumed - did not pop up later - it was not in writing as of yet, that we know of.
But rest assured it was Tradition. [ie - it carried thru the ages]

Well Mary being assumed into heaven is not in the scriptures nor even talked about. You just put Marys name into places you want actually. Making her something scriptures does not. There is no reason for Mary to be assumed. She is a sleeping saint waiting for her body to be raised incorrruptable just like all the sleeping saints. This is clearly the tradtion of man and not the truth of God.

 

[lionroar0]

Well Mary being assumed into heaven is not in the scriptures nor even talked about. You just put Marys name into places you want actually. Making her something scriptures does not. There is no reason for Mary to be assumed. She is a sleeping saint waiting for her body to be raised incorrruptable just like all the sleeping saints. This is clearly the tradtion of man and not the truth of God.

Neither is the Hyspostatic union.

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

Neither is the Hyspostatic union.

Peace

We see in the scriptures where Jesus was the word that became flesh. That He truly is who He says He is in the scriptures.. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh - He became a human being (John 1:14).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. The church that embraced the Canon knew NOTHING of the Assumption of Mary.

Just for you information, Mary is not Elijah or Moses.You have proof I guess?

There is ZERO evidence that the church that embraced the canon of Scriptures knew ANYTHING WHATSOEVER of the Assumption of Mary.

IF you had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to substantiate the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, you would have provided it. Obviously, you don't.

​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have no clue what your point is, my good friend and unseparated brother... As Scripture declares, "with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE," so if you are attempting to convey that all things are possible, no one (I know of) denies that. It's certainly POSSIBLE that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and lived entirely on tacos - no one denies the theoretical possibilities there. But possible does not equal dogmatically true.

Of course, since ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, it could be that the RCC went apostate and Jesus re-established His Church in the Americas as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - no one denies it's a theoretical possible ("With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.") But I guess I'm just not agreeing with your rubric that if it's POSSIBLE, therefore, it MUST be dogma.



"Clearly?"




I suppose that depends on what invisible words you are referencing. IMHO, there's just as much biblical support for Mary being 15 feet tall, having pink hair and living entirely on tacos - and that's also POSSIBLE and that doesn't CONTRADICT Scripture either. Of course, you won't find a word about that in Scripture or the earliest Christian authors, but then you won't for the Assumption of Mary, either. I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, I'm not saying it's HERETICAL, I'm saying it's unsubstantiated - just as I suspect you think Jesus visiting the Americas and re-establishing His Church here is also unsubstantiated.




Thank you!

Its right there in scriptures CJ.

Then quote those Scripture - PLEASE!
Because, so far, you keep making that point but refusing to offer a single Scripture that says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about this dogma - much less substantiate it.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[lionroar0]

We see in the scriptures where Jesus was the word that became flesh. That He truly is who He says He is in the scriptures.. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh - He became a human being (John 1:14).

What the Scriptures don't explicate is how much of Jesus is God and how much of Jesus is human.

That is what the hyspostatic union does.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Then quote those Scripture - PLEASE!
Because, so far, you keep making that point but refusing to offer a single Scripture that says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about this dogma - much less substantiate it.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah
​

The thing is we are not SOLA SCRIPTURA.

We don't measure ourselves by the Bible alone like non apostolics do. So please stop using an edited measuring stick to measure the CC.

Peace
​

 

[WarriorAngel]

Well Mary being assumed into heaven is not in the scriptures nor even talked about. You just put Marys name into places you want actually. Making her something scriptures does not. There is no reason for Mary to be assumed. She is a sleeping saint waiting for her body to be raised incorrruptable just like all the sleeping saints. This is clearly the tradtion of man and not the truth of God.

AND neither is Moses' assumption.
Show me where.

I told you where it is...because God doesn't need every single facet recorded for it to be true....into the Bible.

NOW - if we were to take all of Tradition - all the ecf's and put them into canon as was originally thot maybe they should do...
THEN the Assumption would BE in there.
The first writing was around 303 AD.

But so what...Moses died a few thousand years before Christ...and had we kept adding to scriptures - the Assumption of Mary would be in there too.

The Church - not just anyone - decided to close canon.
But they didnt once, not once suggest Tradition ended or revelation ended because the canon was closed.

Public revelation became distinct from private revelation....which assumes that private revelation would continue, just wouldnt be added to the Bible. They called public revelation.

Furthermore; Tradition wasn't upheld on the contigency that it be written.
And in no part of the Bible did either Christ demand anything be written, but taught [which is oral]
And that said, the Bible never once claimed to be the sole containment of truth.

Paul said.....
'keep both the written and the oral.'
AND also Paul makes a distinction between doctrine and what was written..

Timothy 4
13 Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.


Paul shows us that the doctrines weren't written...
or he wouldnt have said it the way he did. If everything was written that was needed...Paul would have simply said; 'attend unto reading.'