• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Terms Queen of heaven and Fully God and fully man... But at the same time?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Alithis, Sep 4, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,785
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I WORSHIPED MARY! She is NOT a goddess, and I never even hinted she was! However, I have noticed that you seem to worship the Bible, which is, after all, just a record of God's Words about men. So you are yourself worshiping the things of man, and not of God.

    No, I am not attacking you. I am logically and rationally pointing out the flaws in your thought.

    Now go ahead and flame me, and tell me that I am working for the devil and against God, and that I will fail, utterly, and be damned to hell. WAH!
     
  2. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,785
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    But that is exactly what you do!
     
  3. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,785
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    When were they added? What time, date and year?

    It might be true--I haven't researched the Greek or Aramaic yet--that it does not specifically say "AT THE SAME TIME" in the various English translations that I have at hand. But your obsession with those same words had led you down a dangerous path, and unless you repent of your beliefs, and come back to the purity of the Gospel, you will be on your face in fear when you stand before God at the last judgment.
     
  4. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,053
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    Jumping in here (and your list of Prot beliefs will be dealt with in a separate post), unless you insist Mary did not die, which is not official Rc belief, and EOs believe she did, then this is a distinction without a difference: one is bodily resurrected and assumed (taking possession of by God) up to Heaven by the power of God.

    And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. (1 Corinthians 6:14)

    You own (assuming you are a RC) CCC states,

    The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians. (966)
    This should refer to teaching the Assumption of Mary as a doctrine. For while there is Biblical foundation for bodily resurrection and assumption into Heaven, what God can do simply does not mean that He has or will, otherwise you could teach that Mary parted the Red Sea, or one or more of the believes Catholics have in Mary, such as that she is the omnipotent dispenser of all grace, having "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven," and that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse." who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin," and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus," that saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation," etc. and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess," (but not worshiped, by playing word games for this). [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] Sources and more.[/FONT]
    Bible Prots (evangelicals) should have no objection to the Assumption of Mary IF it was promised or recorded in Scripture, but as binding belief it is to be rejected, along with the hyper exaltation of Mary that is far far "above that which is written." (cf. 1Co. 4:6)
    Believing the Bible means trusting what it says, which is not that the bodily assumption of Enoch and Elijah means Mary also was, or that what God can do means He must have for Mary. And thus the "assumption" here is a specious one, that since God did something for Enoch then He must have for Mary, but nowhere is this promised or substantiated, nor is the sinlessness of Mary, or that she was the greatest saint, having successfully endured and labored more than Paul etc. for Christ etc.
    This assumes that Mary is the Ark (a masculine noun), and which is not what Scripture teachers, including by typology, versus Christ.
    Which was likely Paul Himself, and thus you could teach a later Assumption of Paul with more warrant than for Mary, but besides it not being known whether this was "in the body or out of the body," once again, the fact that God can and has done something simply does not warrant belief that He did so to Mary being doctrine.
    As above, the fact that God can and has done something simply does not warrant belief that He did so to Mary being doctrine. Unlike bodily assumptions and resurrections in Scripture, belief in that of Mary is not manifestly one that the NT church believed in, but was a later development.

    But that the catching away of all believers which 1 Thess. 4:17 speaks of (after the Trib) is not a matter of interpretation, and then shall believers ever be with the Lord, no in Purgatory first.
    That this refers to Mary is not even official RC doctrine, and why believe you over your NAB Bible and The New Catholic Answer Bible commentary and other RC sources?
    The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13-17); cf Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster. ; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/. . P12V.HTM#$54O

    Raymond Brown interprets Revelation 12 as, “The woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet and on her head the crown of twelve stars, represents Israel, echoing the dream of Joseph in Gen. 37:9 where these symbols represent his father (Jacob/Israel), his mother, and his brothers (the sons of Jacob who were looked on as ancestors of the twelve tribes)” [Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p.790].

    Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes:

    The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought.

    Who then is she? The source to which John has turned for his imagery throughout this book is the Old Testament. There, the Woman, the bride of God which brings forth the Messiah is Israel, the true Israel, the chosen people of God. It is quite certain that this is what is in John's mind when he begins his description with a quotation from Gen. 37:9-10 where the sun and the moon and the twelve stars represent the twelve-fold of Israel.

    This Woman will later be contrasted with the Harlot (the collective personality of Rome, opposed to the true Israel) and will be specified at the end of the book, again appearing in the light and splendour for her marriage with the Lamb as the twelve-gated Jerusalem which forms the new Israel. In fact the number twelve occurs so frequently in the Apocalypse in reference to Israel that it cannot have a different meaning here. All the early fathers of the church interpreted these verses as about the Israel of God. - http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdf

    ..It is not until the fifth century (in Quodvultdeus) and the sixth century (in Oecumenius) that we find positive evidence for seeing, respectively, Mary as a secondary referent unintended by the author of the Revelation and Mary as the primary referent in the interpretation of this text. In any case, the Marian interpretation was never the majority opinion in the early church. The majority viewed the 'woman' as the people of God, both the ancient church and the New Covenant church." (Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? [Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001], pp. 231-232)

    That Christ is the is the child who is to rule with an iron rod" is clear, but which does not make Mary to be the women, and the typology fits Israel. And he [Joseph] dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? (Genesis 37:9,10)

    As said, the sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, and the 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) And which was and will be persecuted, but God keeps her through it. And Israel is likened to being a women and mother:

    For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers. (Jeremiah 4:31)

    Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail. Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies. (Micah 4:9-10)

    I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman. (Jeremiah 6:2)

    The women of Rv. 12 travailed (ōdinō: (cf. Gal. 4:19, 4:27) in birth and tormented (basanizō: cf. Mat. 8:6;Rev. 9:5; Rev. 20:10; Mat. 8:29; Mar. 5:7; Luk. 8:28; Mar. 6:48; Mat. 14:24; 2Pe. 2:8) to be delivered of her child, which was Christ, but which women cannot be the Mary of Rome, as it teaches that since she was sinless,

    just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity...To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain. - CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT PART 1: THE CREED; Article III. THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Creed - Article III

    In the preface of the votive Mass in honor of Mary at the foot of the cross, we read the words: “She who had given Him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of the Church.” cst-phl.com - This website is for sale! - cst-phl Resources and Information.

    “In conceiving you were all pure, in giving birth y ou were without pain.” (St. Augustine, Sermone de Nativitate )

    Thus to take this as the women literally giving birth then you must contradict RC teaching that Mary had no anguish and pain of birth. In addition, no where is Mary said to uniquely be the mother of all Christians, but as said, Christ makes all such disciples

    In addition, while the women can be seen to be Israel and thus consequently, the church, Rev. 7:4-8; cf. 14:1-4 also shows John's focus is on Israel, that of the remaining descendants of Abraham during the tribulation which turn to the Lord, whose coming the CCC teaches awaits his recognition by all Israel, whose acceptance means life from the dead, and that this full inclusion of the Jews will be in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles being saved.
    Scripture clearly teaches that,

    For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:25-27)

    Thus Rev. 7:14 speaks of a remnant of these in the tribulation period, and to which other prophecies relate:

    And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord God. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: (Ezekiel 20:34-37)

    And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers. And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God. (Ezekiel 20:42-44)

    The nations that persecute the remnant of Jews who turn to Christ are led by the devil, and which God protects by providing a place in the wilderness for 3.5 years, while in the end the Lord wuill destroy these persecuting peoples.

    And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (Zechariah 12:9-10)

    And even if we allowed this as a possible mention of Mary, it does not present the Mary of Catholicism, and it remains that there is only one manifest mention of her the inspired record of the NT church, (Acts 1) in stark contrast to her hyper exaltation and centrality in Catholic devotion, thinking of her far far above that which is written.
    Finally we have the actual source for this belief, yet the veracity for this belief as being Apostolic tradition rests upon the tradition of the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. But Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    Do you believe that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority?

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

    As for 2Thes. 2:15, even SS preachers enjoin submission to oral teaching, under the premise that it is Scriptural, being subject to testing by Scripture as apostolic teaching was and not vice versa. (Acts 17:11) However, men such as the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God (thus revealing truths that may have passed on) and also provide new public Divine revelation, neither of which even Rome claims to do in making her papal pronouncements. Thus her declaration of oral teaching cannot be equal to Scripture, which has God as its formal author, unlike papal declaration, and as the assured word of God Scripture is not only correct, but has a special supernatural anointing. (Heb. 4:12)

    In reality, while there is Biblical foundation for being bodily assumed into heaven without dying or after death (though believing that Mary did not die is not required in Catholicism), that simply does not warrant making make the belief that Mary to be doctrine. That Mary was bodily resurrected is not in Scripture, nor promised to her as an exception - before the resurrection. Instead this doctrine flows out of Catholic "oral tradition," out of which she can make legends into being "apostolic doctrine."

    Yet that this was so lacking in testimony even from early tradition (where it would be manifestly celebrated) that Roman scholars opposed it as being apostolic doctrine, as Ratzinger himself testified (emp. mine:

    Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

    However, Rome can claim to later "remember" what early historical testimony "forgot:" for as as Ratzinger went on to say,

    But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).


    But which explanation is specious sophistry, for it abuses John 16:4 which refers to remembering what Christ had told them on earth ("these things have I told you"), into remembering a future event that the NT did not manifestly believe, and turns this wannabe historical event into something that was too hard to understand - "what previously we could still not grasp."

    And then this explanation turns John 16:4,12-13, which refers to the Spirit guiding us into all Truth, into a kind of carte blanche provision to effectively call things that were not evidenced as early belief by the NT church as if they were, making a tradition that progressively developed into a something that a RC is mandated to believe, over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred!

    Assumption supporter RC Lawrence P. Everett, (C.Ss.R., S.T.D.) confessed:

    In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.

    The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia,.. in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."

    ...And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, Timothy of Jerusalem, who said: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"9(After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23). no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death....

    In the Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII quotes but three Fathers of the Church, all Orientals. St. John Damascene (d. 749)...St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) ...St. Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634)...

    Apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior to the end of the fifth century.

    The first remote testimony to which Pope Pius XII turns in order to indicate the fact that our present belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother was likewise the belief of the Church from the earliest times is the Sacred Liturgy...

    ...The feast of the Assumption began in the East as did many of the older Marian feasts... However, due to the fact that neither Sacred Scripture nor early Tradition speaks explicitly of the last days of our Blessed Mother on earth and of her Assumption into heaven, the liturgy of this feast did not mention them either. Later, when the apocryphal Transitus Mariae ” in which the death and Assumption of Mary are described in detail ” became popular among the faithful, the facts of her death and Assumption were inserted into the feast... - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469


    Also, Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, states:

    The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

    Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission), also finds,

    "Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)

    William Webster states,
    Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:...

    1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.

    2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).

    3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).

    4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).

    5) An insertion was made in Eusebius's Chronicle that ˜in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.' - Christian Resources


    What then is the basis for such required belief? Not the weight of evidential warrant like as with the resurrection of Christ and His life, (cf. Lk. 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3; 2:22; 17:31; 1Co. 15:1-8), but the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility:

    “Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

    For unlike NT beliefs, including the resurrection of Christ which had over 500 witnesses, in Catholicism Scripture and Tradition only consists of and means what she says, as no less than "Cardnal" Manning essentially argued:

    It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
    I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
    And if the bones of Mary cannot be found means she was assumed, then it means many others were as well, for the absence of bones is not that uncommon.

    Even John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407) stated,

    "Tell me, are not the bones of Moses himself laid in a strange land? And those of Aaron, of Daniel, of Jeremiah? And as to those of the Apostles we do not know where those of most of them are laid. For of Peter indeed, and Paul, and John, and Thomas, the sepulchers are well known; but those of the rest, being so many, have nowhere become known. Let us not therefore lament at all about this, nor be so little-minded. For where-ever we may be buried, 'the earth is the Lord's and all that therein is.'[Psalm 24:1]" (Homilies On Hebrews, 26:2, v. 22)

    Jason Engwer comments,

    Dionysius of Alexandria, a bishop of the third century, wrote:

    "Chaeremon, who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife to the Arabian mountain and did not return. And though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them or their bodies." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 6:42:3)

    This passage illustrates some points relevant to an assumption of Mary. First, it's an illustration of the absurdity of the idea that Christians for hundreds of years would have known about a bodily assumption of Mary, yet would never have said anything about it in their extant writings, even when they're commenting on Mary. If both Dionysius and Eusebius thought it significant that this bishop and his wife couldn't be found, that their bodies were missing, don't you think a bodily assumption of Mary would have seemed even more significant to them? Don't you think it would be mentioned sometime in these early centuries?

    Secondly, this passage from Dionysius illustrates the absurdity of concluding that a bodily assumption has occurred just because the whereabouts of a person's body aren't known. What if we were to conclude that Mary's remains weren't kept by the early Christians, that her tomb was empty, etc.? Would such evidence, by itself, prove that an assumption occurred? No. It would be consistent with an assumption, but it wouldn't, by itself, prove an assumption.

    The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were "assumed" and "translated", but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5).

    People claim to see references to an assumption of Mary in Biblical passages like Revelation 12. Yet, Hippolytus, Methodius, and other early fathers comment on such passages without saying anything of an assumption.

    How likely is it that all of these writers, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary’s assumption, even though they knew of it? Though Roman Catholics give Mary so much attention and claim that Mary is God’s greatest creation, the apocryphal assumption of Moses receives more attention among the ante-Nicene fathers than Mary’s assumption (which isn’t mentioned at all).


    Thus what you have for the Assumption is manifold assumptions. Why no admit the claim to the veracity of this event rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility?
    Hahn is a manifest refuted propagandist in service to elitist Rome.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,785
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    Why go through the bother? Why not just say Jesus is Lord! Because, “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

    If you look through my back postings, you will see that I often proclaim that Jesus is Lord, God, and Savior.

    The rest? Why tear, rip or defile in any other way an image of Mary if she is of no import to you? Or any other, "idol?" If they are false images, then I don't bother with all of the hysteria of yelling "I denounce you," or anything like that. I simply throw it in the trash.

    As far as the image of the dead body of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ at the moment of His greatest triumph? “then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1Cor 15:54).

    And I also know that my Redeemer lives!
     
  6. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,053
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    As your premise of also so is your conclusion.
    1. Altar call is simply an practice adopted by some evangelical churches, simply being a invitation to pray and seek the Lord as a result of conviction of one's need for salvation, often including the offer of help from others. However, believing it is not a binding doctrine, but it has Biblical support in precedent and principal.

    Scriptures states that there is a a day of salvation:

    (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) (2 Corinthians 6:2)

    And urges souls to "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near," (Isaiah 55:6)

    And Scripture reports on how convicted souls gathered together and were invited to confess to and make covenant with God:

    Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore. (Ezra 10:1)

    And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. (Ezra 10:10-11)

    And since there were so many, they appointed a time to meet with workers in order to deal with the practical matter. Likewise can convicted souls be given a time to deal with the spiritual matters of their heart, with workers available to help them.
    This should not be a required belief (nor is it for most) as regards the timing, but that this will happen (which i see as being the resurrection at the end of the Trib.) is Biblical, that "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord," (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:52)
    This is not essential salvific belief as the Assumption for RCs basically is (cut off), but while disputable among Christians, that Jesus will physically return to the earth (the Second Coming) before a literal thousand-year Millennium rests upon much support as prophecy, as does the latter day repentance of (what is left of) the "natural branches" coming to faith, the manner of which you can only wish you had for Catholic traditions such as the Assumption as prophecy fulfilled in the 1st c.
    This is not necessarily an essential salvific belief, unless one believes saving faith is merely believing in the Lord Jesus to save while not living that faith out, versus the classic Prot doctrine of perseverance of the saints. But that the Scriptures both promise salvation to all who believe, (John 10:27,30) and assurance that one presently has eternal life, (1 John 5:13) as well as warning believers against departing from the living God, and making Christ of no effect/profit, falling from grace and into perdition, is quite clear. (Galatians 5:1-5; Hebrews 3:12; 10:38,39) In stark contrast to the Assumption having occurred or promised.
    This is well supported, rightly and reasonable understood as teaching that Scripture alone is the supreme substantive sure standard for faith and morals, and sufficient in its formal and material senses to provide what is needed for the obedience of faith.

    1. Writing - not long0term oral transmission - is God's manifest means of historical preservation: Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11

    And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)

    Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
    It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:

    And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
    Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)

    Nor was it passed-down oral tradition that was ever lauded like the written word of God, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119) and was the authority the Lord reproved the devil and religious leadership by, and substantiated His clams by, and opened the minds of the disciples to. (Mt. 4; 22; Lk. 24:44,45)
    2. As is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
    Thus even the veracity of apostolic preaching was subject to testing by Scripture, not vice versa. (Acts 17:11)
    3. While the Lord and apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God, and enjoin submission to oral teaching under the premise that it is Scriptural, yet as said, men such as the apostles could provide new public Divine revelation, neither of which even Rome claims to do in making her papal pronouncements. Thus her declaration of oral teaching cannot be equal to Scripture, which has God as its formal author, unlike papal declaration, and as the assured word of God Scripture is not only correct, but has a special supernatural anointing. (Heb. 4:12)
    4. Both men and writings of God were ascertained as being so by common (essentially due to the unique Divine qualities and attestation) before a self-proclaimed infallible church presumed she was essential for this, and such believers sometimes could (and can) do so in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture.
    5. From the beginning, God has always provided what was necessary to obey and be blessed by Him, and only Scripture is the preserved assured word of God. But which provided (and may be said to still possibly allow for) for more complementary and conflative Divine revelation being added to that body, which was established as per the prior revelation was, not be infallible magisterial decree.
    6. Yet Scripture does not formally provide for all that a believer needs, but materially provides for such things as reason, reading, teachers, devotional material, and the magisterial office, the light of nature, etc. All of which is subject to testing by the supreme standard for Truth, that being the wholly inspired-of- God written word.
    7. Since the distinctives of Catholicism itself are not manifestly part of what the NT church believed according to the inspired record of it, what it says the word of God as oral tradition is dubious at best, and is not doctrine. Peter called sinners apart to decide for Christ in Acts 2:38,
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  7. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,785
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    I hate having to debate Marian doctrines on a forum that holds people that don't believe Jesus is God, nonetheless, I will say this: Mary did, indeed die. That is is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It always has been, and it always will be. At some point AFTER she died, God brought her up to heaven, and restored her spirit and soul to her Body. She is the only person that live only in the age to come.
     
  8. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,785
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    In other words, a TRADITION of man.

    So if it is not essential for salvation, why preach it?

    Does it? Again, if it is not essential, why preach it at all?

    Finally, why preach it if it is not essential for salvation?

    These are all traditions of men, and not found in the Bible. The whole idea of the rapture was not a part of Christian thought for 1800 years or so. It wasn't until John Nelson Darby did his own translation of the Bible in 1890 The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby.

    Any time that a single person or denomination does a translation of the Bible, no matter how holy he is, there is going to be an agenda, and we can see that Darby had his. Did you know that Darby saw the invention of the telegraph as a sign that the end of the world was approaching; he called the telegraph an invention of Cain and a harbinger of Armageddon?

    Just some food for thought.
     
  9. NW82

    NW82 Well-Known Member

    831
    +521
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    US-Libertarian
    I provided scripture and Greek words indicating such, whereas I asked for scripture regarding this so called Salome, which doesn't exist.
     
  10. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +586
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Does Jesus love His mother?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  11. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +21,927
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    You have Scripture that says that Jesus' brothers and sisters were the biological offspring of Mary? It would be most helpful if you could provide them again as I didn't see you provide them earlier. Also if you could provide the Greek words again, that would also be most appreciated.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  12. stuart lawrence

    stuart lawrence Well-Known Member

    +1,583
    Christian
    Single
    Isn't this the carpenters son. Isn't his mother's name Mary( that's the parents mentioned) and aren't his brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
    Matt 13:55

    Who are these guys then?
     
  13. Alithis

    Alithis Disciple of Jesus .

    +2,135
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Married
    Just because something is absent in scripture does not mean “ it IS so ” Just because you want it to be so you can justify your false godless.
     
  14. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +21,927
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Is there anything in this passage that would suggest that they must be Mary's biological children, and couldn't be the children of Joseph from a previous marriage? It says that Jesus' mother is Mary, it doesn't say that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas' mother is Mary.

    I'm not saying that they can't be Mary's biological children, or that they must be the offspring of Joseph from a previous marriage; but what I am saying is that the text does not say that they are Mary's biological offspring.

    Both interpretations are completely valid given the information provided. The historic view of the Christian Church has always been that these aren't Mary's biological children, these aren't Jesus' blood-siblings; they are the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. And there is nothing in this historic view that is contradicted by Scripture.

    My personal opinion is that it simply doesn't matter. But I do have a problem with claiming Scripture says X when it doesn't.

    If one is going to argue that the historic view is refuted by Scripture, then one ought to have Scripture to refute it--but passages such as this, and others, don't refute it--they say nothing one way or the other on the subject. Ultimately, neither view can be argued purely from Scripture alone; because Scripture itself is entirely silent on those details.

    If one does, however, have Scripture that says these are the biological children of Mary, then I of course would be interested to hear it. But I have yet to encounter anyone provide Scripture to that effect, instead the Scriptures provided are as you have here, which say nothing one way or the other on this matter.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  15. Alithis

    Alithis Disciple of Jesus .

    +2,135
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Married
    Haha nice try ..very dishonest but great attempt.
    I already stated..Jesus ..the word..did not become GOD.. He is ALREADY GOD. Mary did not birth nor mother GOD.
    The word became flesh ..Mary birthed FLESH .
    The word did not become God the word was already God ..but “became flesh. God manifest in the flesh.
    The father remained in heaven the almighty eternal God.
    His word came forth from him and became flesh .

    This is 100% scriptural.
    This never ever denies who Jesus is.

    All scripture is self supporting.everyone written in the new has foundation in the OT.
    But GOD having a mother..never. The suggestion is an abomination.

    You reall need to repent from worshiping this false goddess who plays no part in salvation what so EVER.
     
  16. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +21,927
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    So when did God the Word stop being God?

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  17. Alithis

    Alithis Disciple of Jesus .

    +2,135
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Married
    Veiled flame..
     
  18. stuart lawrence

    stuart lawrence Well-Known Member

    +1,583
    Christian
    Single
     
  19. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +9,050
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Mothers don't give birth to flesh, they give birth to persons. The person Mary gave birth to is God, therefore she is the mother of God.
     
  20. stuart lawrence

    stuart lawrence Well-Known Member

    +1,583
    Christian
    Single
    Scripture is also silent as to a person being required to believe Christ is the one true God to be saved. Does the same logic apply?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...