Speak lovingly of Mary

[MamaZ]

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

It sure does.. We read in the scriptures that the word became flesh.

 

[MamaZ]

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.

No one is to add to the scriptures. For the scriptures are inspired of God not man. This is why we read this.
2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

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.

We are never told in scripture that tradtion holds truth. Or that tradition is inspired of God. In Fact Jesus was not too keen on tradtions of man. He was more into it is written.

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.

Jesus said that we were to continue in His word and we would know the truth and the truth would set us free. Jesus fulfilled what was written in the OT and not tradtion. Jesus always takes you to it is written and rebukes tradtion saying that by holding on to mans tradtion you forsake the commandment of God.
"Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. 'But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'

"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Prov. 30:5-6).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The thing is we are not SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Then perhaps the point should not be repeatedly made that the dogma is affirmed by Scripture. Maybe you and our friend WarriorAngel need to decide if "it's right there in Scripture!" or not.

Now, friend, if you want to insist that this DOGMA has zero biblical affirmation and from the earliest Catholic Denomination "Fathers" and that it cannot be associated with any of the Apostles and was not taught in the early church, you won't get any argument from me. But what I am responding to here is the oft made point in the thread that "it's all right there in Scripture, CJ!" Maybe you think it's NOT in Scripture - in which case, we agree with each other and disagree with WarriorAngel.




Thank you.



Pax



- Josiah

 

[bbbbbbb]

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!!!




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


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.




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

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

Peace[/quote]

Thanks for making my point. The absence of any human body provides no proof of assumption, as WarriorAngel insisted. We have no more evidence using this line of reasoning that Mary was assumed than Adolph Hitler was assumed.

I am not joking. I do not joke as a rule and when I make statements such as the above I clearly explain my reasoning for them. Are you joking? It seems to me that you are in taking the position of disbelief in the biblical support of the trinity, but accepting Tradition over and above what you perceive to be, at best, a concept either denied in or impossible to determine from the Bible.

I can say that I live in a culture in which the trinity is understood and discussed. I cannot say that none of my culture did not affect my thinking concerning the trinity any more than it affected my views on other matters such as politics. I have met individuals who have had no cultural exposure to the concept of the trinity who, through a variety of means, read the Bible quite on their own and came to a clear understanding of the trinity. Although they did not use the T-word, the understanding of a single god having three distinct personages was clear to them from their reading of the Bible.

All of heaven celebrated creation, as well. I am also certain there was a reaction to various events such as the Fall, the Flood, etc. These one-time events elicited one-time reactions but were not stipulated to be re-enacted or celebrated on a regular basis. The Passover, which relative to these other things was a lesser event (only on a relative basis, mind you) and was specifically ordained to be celebrated annually, along with other feasts. The incarnation, while of the utmost significance, is never stipulated to be celebrated on a regular basis. However, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave His church instructions for the regular remembrance of His death, burial, resurrection, and return. Why is it that Christendom spends much more time and money in the celebration of the incarnation (if such it can be called in light of all the cultural appendages which have been attached to it) than in the simple, but profound remembrance of His salvific work for mankind?

 

[lionroar0]

It sure does.. We read in the scriptures that the word became flesh.

And where do the Scriptures say that how much of Jesus is human and how much is God?

Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And where do the Scriptures say that how much of Jesus is human and how much is God?

Peace

I give up. Where?

Zechariah 8:23 Thus sayeth YHWH-of Hosts: in-Days, the-those, which they-shall-take-firm-hold a-hem/wing, Ten Mortals/582 'enowsh, from-all Tongues-of the-Nations.
And-They-take-fast/hold in-hem-of a-Man/0376 'iysh, a-Judean/Y@huwdiy, to-say 'We-are-going with-You that We-hear Elohiym with-Thee'. [Mark 6:56]

Mark 6:56 And the-where ever He into-journeyed into villages, the cities, the fields/hamlets, in the market-places, they place the ones being sick and they beside-called Him that if-even the hang-foot of the garment of Him they should be touching, and as manysoever as touch of Him/it, were saved [Zech 8:23]

 

[lionroar0]

Then perhaps the point should not be repeatedly made that the dogma is affirmed by Scripture. Maybe you and our friend WarriorAngel need to decide if "it's right there in Scripture!" or not.

Now, friend, if you want to insist that this DOGMA has zero biblical affirmation and from the earliest Catholic Denomination "Fathers" and that it cannot be associated with any of the Apostles and was not taught in the early church, you won't get any argument from me. But what I am responding to here is the oft made point in the thread that "it's all right there in Scripture, CJ!" Maybe you think it's NOT in Scripture - in which case, we agree with each other and disagree with WarriorAngel.

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

That's because we use both Tradition and Scripture together. They are both part of the faith once delivered to the saints. Neither is above the other. They are part of a whole.

And also with Sola Scriptura faith is minimized to intellectual assent. If it's not in the bible it's not christianity. Although early christianity did not measure itself by Scripture alone.

The Earliest of the Fathers also did not have a recourse to the Bible nor did early christianity.

If I remember right the earliest celebration of the Dormition of Mary dated back to the 4th century on Jerusalem. The same time that the Bible was compiled.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

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

Peace

Thanks for making my point. The absence of any human body provides no proof of assumption, as WarriorAngel insisted. We have no more evidence using this line of reasoning that Mary was assumed than Adolph Hitler was assumed.

We have no proof that Moses was assumed either but there he was with Jesus and Elijah.

I am not joking. I do not joke as a rule and when I make statements such as the above I clearly explain my reasoning for them. Are you joking? It seems to me that you are in taking the position of disbelief in the biblical support of the trinity, but accepting Tradition over and above what you perceive to be, at best, a concept either denied in or impossible to determine from the Bible.

My disbelief comes in that the same Tradition that Defined the Trinity and found the Biblical proof of the Trinity is the same Tradition that defined the Assumption/Dormition of Mary and found Biblical proof for both.

If this Tradition is mistaken about Mary being taken to heaven then you have no guarantee that your belief in the Trinity is correct.

I can say that I live in a culture in which the trinity is understood and discussed. I cannot say that none of my culture did not affect my thinking concerning the trinity any more than it affected my views on other matters such as politics. I have met individuals who have had no cultural exposure to the concept of the trinity who, through a variety of means, read the Bible quite on their own and came to a clear understanding of the trinity. Although they did not use the T-word, the understanding of a single god having three distinct personages was clear to them from their reading of the Bible.

And what are these variety of means? And did these means describe the concept of the Trinity?

Did they understand that all three are of the Same essece. That God is the 1st person of the Trinity, Jesus the Son is the 2nd and the Holy Spirit the third? Did they understand that one is not above the other? Do they understand that God the Father is the source of the 2nd and 3rd person's of the Trinity?

All of heaven celebrated creation, as well. I am also certain there was a reaction to various events such as the Fall, the Flood, etc. These one-time events elicited one-time reactions but were not stipulated to be re-enacted or celebrated on a regular basis. The Passover, which relative to these other things was a lesser event (only on a relative basis, mind you) and was specifically ordained to be celebrated annually, along with other feasts. The incarnation, while of the utmost significance, is never stipulated to be celebrated on a regular basis. However, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave His church instructions for the regular remembrance of His death, burial, resurrection, and return. Why is it that Christendom spends much more time and money in the celebration of the incarnation (if such it can be called in light of all the cultural appendages which have been attached to it) than in the simple, but profound remembrance of His salvific work for mankind?

The Incarnation is the remembrance of His salvific work.

No incarnation, no gospel,

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

Jesus came an took on a clay body. Made from the dust of the earth Simple as that. We can read in the Scriptures the very truth of the Godhead. We do not need tradition to teach us for the very Spirit of Christ Himself indwells our bodies and teaches us Gods truth.

 

[MamaZ]

IT is not His birth that saves us but His death. For He came to die for the sins of the world and to lay down His life for His sheep. Our salvation is found at the cross of Christ and His ressurection.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's because we use both Tradition and Scripture together.

I know.

But then YOU are the one that stated you could "prove" it by Scripture.

OF COURSE, anyone can "prove" anything by using their own beliefs as the "rule" for their own beliefs as arbitrated by their own self, but that was not your point.

If I remember right the earliest celebration of the Dormition of Mary dated back to the 4th century on Jerusalem.

Let's assume that's true. Then it's not affirmed by Scripture, is it?
And it's not Apostolic since it comes from 3 centuries AFTER the last Apostle died and ended the Apostolic Age. Thus, it doesn't come from Mary, it doesn't come from Scripture, it doens't come from any Apostle, it doesn't come from anyone who ever so much as even met Mary, and it doesn't come from any earliest "Catholic Denominational Father."



So, your new position is:

1. You CANNOT "prove" it from Scripture.
2. It's from the 4th Century - at the very, very earliest.
3. It doesn't come from Scripture, Mary, the Apostles, the earliest Catholic Denomination Fathers or the Early Church.

That makes it a late, abiblical, unsubstantiated rumor. Made into a DOGMA in 1950 - the highest level of truth, certainty and importance. You might want to review your Catechism as it addresses the Commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness."




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Komnenos]

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8044.asp

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you Komnenos for the excellent link. I think the article provides a brief, yet thorough, explanation of the EOC understanding. However, it does not provide the scriptural basis requested by CaliforniaJosiah addressing what is probably a uniquely Roman Catholic view of Mary. The RCC apologists here have, indeed, stated that their views are thoroughly scriptural and I, like Josiah, would greatly appreciate seeing and responding to the biblical passages which support their understanding.

Like Josiah, I do not have any difficulty with a church such as yours which simply states their understanding and does not claim a biblical basis for such. If that is what you believe, that certainly is not a great concern of mine.

 

[Komnenos]

Thank you Komnenos for the excellent link. I think the article provides a brief, yet thorough, explanation of the EOC understanding. However, it does not provide the scriptural basis requested by CaliforniaJosiah addressing what is probably a uniquely Roman Catholic view of Mary. The RCC apologists here have, indeed, stated that their views are thoroughly scriptural and I, like Josiah, would greatly appreciate seeing and responding to the biblical passages which support their understanding.

Like Josiah, I do not have any difficulty with a church such as yours which simply states their understanding and does not claim a biblical basis for such. If that is what you believe, that certainly is not a great concern of mine.

Your welcome, Lord have mercy,
Komnenos

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have this to contribute:

Exodus 15:21 And Miriam responded to the men, "Sing to Yahweh for He is exalted--exalted the horse and his rider hath He cast into the sea".

Luke 2:34 and Simeon blesses them and said toward Miriam the mother of Him, "Behold, this-one is setting into a fall and resurrection of many in the Israel, and into a sign spoken-against" [Ezekiel 37:10, 11]

Revelation 15:3 and They are singing the Song of-Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the song of the Lamb-kin, saying

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

HEY! I like the Baby Jesus version the best!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKDC2iBQTYg

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

HEY! I like the Baby Jesus version the best!

That must be the "Redneck" version of grace before the meal.

 

[NoDoubt]

My focus on Jesus brings me in full circle. [I add its presumptious to say otherwise on where my focus is]

To have Jesus is to find Mary...to have Mary is to find Jesus.

He wants us to immitate Him. He wants us to love and honor her, and when He sends us a message thru her.... to obey her.
All the attributes He Himself possessed while human.

And before you tell me that is absurd, i would prefer [since you do not believe in the Church history and Tradition and apparitions that tell us these things as well as authoritive interpretations of scriptures] that you need to go to Heaven and come back with the answers.

You can't.

BUT I can affirm faithfully that one Church schismed three ways [with one single line of unbroken ordinations] wouldnt agree otherwise if it was not Tradition since the beginning.

You are "bashing" me for proclaiming His words. Jesus said "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me" !!!

I will not "venerate" and "devote" myself to ANYONE...ANYONE but MY LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST GOD ALMIGHTY

I went though Catechism studies and nothing made sense. I remember the parades every month of May, walking behind this statue (good grief!!!). I always wondered in my spirit...where is there some awakening? How is this going to bring me to the full knowledge of the Gospel??? IT'S NOT THERE!!!

And it's not ...SINCE THE BEGINNING.....you are all wrong

 

[lionroar0]

I know.

But then YOU are the one that stated you could "prove" it by Scripture.

OF COURSE, anyone can "prove" anything by using their own beliefs as the "rule" for their own beliefs as arbitrated by their own self, but that was not your point.

Let's assume that's true. Then it's not affirmed by Scripture, is it?
And it's not Apostolic since it comes from 3 centuries AFTER the last Apostle died and ended the Apostolic Age. Thus, it doesn't come from Mary, it doesn't come from Scripture, it doens't come from any Apostle, it doesn't come from anyone who ever so much as even met Mary, and it doesn't come from any earliest "Catholic Denominational Father."

So, your new position is:

1. You CANNOT "prove" it from Scripture.
2. It's from the 4th Century - at the very, very earliest.
3. It doesn't come from Scripture, Mary, the Apostles, the earliest Catholic Denomination Fathers or the Early Church.

That makes it a late, abiblical, unsubstantiated rumor. Made into a DOGMA in 1950 - the highest level of truth, certainty and importance. You might want to review your Catechism as it addresses the Commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness."

Thank you!

Pax

- Josiah

Let me see here.

1. You CANNOT "prove" it from Scripture.

Never said that.

What I said was that the CC is not Sola Scriptura. The CC uses both Scritpure and Tradition.

2. It's from the 4th Century - at the very, very earliest.

Same time that the Bible was compiled.

3. It doesn't come from Scripture, Mary, the Apostles, the earliest Catholic Denomination Fathers or the Early Church.

And the Bible does not come from any of those.

The Bible, The Trinity and the Dormition/Assumption of Mary. It all comes from Tradition. Your putting the horse before the apple cart

Peace

 

[NoDoubt]

Off-topic. I apologize...

LLOJ..your avatar and signature are gettng more more disturbing whenever I log on. I only do so once week maybe and I must say I am shocked....