The Assumption of Mary

[Zeek]

Maybe, but my point was: do belief in the assumption presuppose the immaculate conception, or have these two doctrines developed independently?

My own reading and discussion indicates that RCC doctrine is an ever evolving system, and because of attributing certain things to Mary such as perpetual viginity (some believe Jesus didn't even pass through the birth canal as with normal births, but miraculously passed through the wall of the womb) and sinlessness, they then had to develop the whole idea of the Assumption....I say develop, but I think I mean invent.

But that's a good question: how could Christ die, being sinless, and the wages of sin is death? But that's another topic. Doesn't Scripture say He was made unto sin, so we, sinners, could be righteous? Untill right about now, I've had an extreme Augustinian view on sin (sin nature=guilt) ...

Studious gave a good answer...Also in Jewish thought one has to see that Jesus became the once and for all sin-offering for ALL mankind...for both Jews to whom the Temple and sacrifice system were well known and part of their life...and to Gentiles who were untaught and afar off.

Yes praise G-d that the Father sent the Son to pay the price for our sin and to give us the gift of eternal life....the very thought of which is a life-long meditation of blessing.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Not made unto sin, ... made sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

When Christ hung on the cross, He took the sin of mankind upon Himself. He paid the debt of sin with His own life.

But, thank God, He rose again just as He promised.

Amen to that!

Finally SOMETHING we all agree on

 

[Zeek]

Amen to that!

Finally SOMETHING we all agree on

Lol...you got that right.

However heated the arguments and conversations, I think we must all realise that we are united together in Jesus, and when everything is striped away and laid bare, nothing else suffices....and I thank G-d for my brethren from different traditions.

 

[WarriorAngel]

My own reading and discussion indicates that RCC doctrine is an ever evolving system, and because of attributing certain things to Mary such as perpetual viginity (some believe Jesus didn't even pass through the birth canal as with normal births, but miraculously passed through the wall of the womb) and sinlessness, they then had to develop the whole idea of the Assumption....I say develop, but I think I mean invent.




Studious gave a good answer...Also in Jewish thought one has to see that Jesus became the once and for all sin-offering for ALL mankind...for both Jews to whom the Temple and sacrifice system were well known and part of their life...and to Gentiles who were untaught and afar off.

Yes praise G-d that the Father sent the Son to pay the price for our sin and to give us the gift of eternal life....the very thought of which is a life-long meditation of blessing.

Besides the fact that Mary's body disappeared - per witnesses - and likely during the lifetime of St John who may or may not have been so excited by this news that he told someone in his letters in the NT - that he had good news to share face to face.

That all aside - if her assumption was invented...
So was Elijahs, Henochs and Moses.
Who were - as i tried to point out at least twice previously, precursors to how God can and does work.

He works outside of time and space.
The Gospel shows us Jesus standing with Moses and Elijah - and them also in their glory and yet this is before His death and resurrection.

Now plainly, if you follow what i am telling you, you will eventually grasp how this leads to Mary's own Body going to Heaven also.
Certainly the woman who was filled with a unique grace and the mother of the Lord [Who is God] - would be received into Heaven - if Jesus were to take the other three first.

And again, after Jesus does and rises, we call Him the First Fruits of Heaven because He opened the gates.
SO why did He show them Moses and Elijah in their glory before He opened the gates to Heaven??
Thats the million dollar question .

Answer:
He was showing, if one can see, that He is outside of earthly time. He is not constrained to our perceptions and our own 'natural' law that He doesnt subscribe to.


NOW i KNOW my posts are boring - long winded and whatever...
But take the time to read them... and this one again, slowly.

Being that He was proving He is not tied to our way of doing things, that not only does the greeting to Mary mean something of her character's sinlessness, and being 'presaved' by her Son as though already washed by baptism, but she enjoyed that state prior to the greeting of the Angel.

And not only is Jesus the first fruit of Heaven, and Moses and Elijah and Henoch enjoyed the glorious state prior to His death and resurrection on earth, but there is no way Moses, Henoch and Elijah could have made it to Heaven first if God doesnt work outside of human time.

OR scriptures and the Apostles would have lied by calling Him the first fruits - since it is evident Moses and Elijah were already there.

Stop thinking in the practical and putting God in a human box that He must conform to us, He just wont.

See the singnificance of what i am telling you.

And there is nothing in all of scriptures to suggest it would be impossible for Mary to be assumed into Heaven bodily...
In fact, scriptures of the OT and NT show it is not only possible, but for her, definite.

 

[billybtennessee]

These discussions never cease. Some believe that all teachings should conform to scripture, and some that teachings should conform to their bishops and popes. Those who believe teachings must conform to their bishops and popes also believe that only their bishops and popes can define what scripture teaches. Those firm in what guides them will not change.

Truth is, the teachings about Mary, (remaining virgin, no original sin, assumptioning into heaven) are all later teachings, that have been brought in after the gospels and the apostles. That is why they will not be found in the gospels or the epistles. Some will claim they were passed 'orally'. But they did not become dogma until centuries later. I believe I read that the 'assumptioning of Mary' was not made into dogma until the 1950's?

Still, folks this is an issue that neither side will abort. Some, perhaps, will see the view of the other side, but only if they have doubts about the side they are on. This is the 4th or 5th forum I have seen (christian), and they are all about doctrines, who is right, who is not, why, how, and some will be so adamant that those who will not conform to their beliefs, are separated, fallen off branches, and we are left to interpret that as stated.

If we study those verses about being fallen off, Rom. Chap. 11, we will see that it is Jesus Christ we must be attached to. Others can add to that if they choose, but it is a very serious mistake to do so. One who is trusting Jesus Christ, following Him, and has been given the Holy Spirit to guide and keep, one will insist they are separated? Focus on what honors Him, I guarantee that is all that will hold up come accounting time. Discussions such as this teaching, robs from the very gospel of Jesus Christ, and will be tried in that light. He alone is the foundation. I sure hope HE is yours.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Yes, if Mary was a deceiving spirit, then why does she always tell people to turn toward her Son?

## Well, you see, that proves how eeeevil she is - she hates us so much, that she is pulling a double bluff. Being a demon has its compensations - not that I have any experience of being a demon, mind you; just drawing an inference.

The logic used by the OP makes the angel Gabriel into a demon...

 

[Hairy Tic]

the Vision at Fatima told the children to say this prayer

"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls into Heaven, especially those of us in most need of they mercy"

this is not the prayer a proud spirit would teach children, it is asking Jesus for forgiveness and a reminder that we need His mercy
I do not think a demon, demons are totaly cut off from any grace correct?

## Yup. Grace & damnation don't mix.

I do not think a demon could even say such a prayer

so the Vision at Fatima could not be demonic
it had to either be some kind of group delusion or hystaria

or a vision from Heaven

I believe that the Vision in Fatima was of the Virgin Mary and she appeared from Heaven

## I can't see any difference between apparitions of angels in the Bible - especially the NT - and, apparitions of human Saints in post-NT times.

Why accept the earlier, as all "of God", yet reject the more recent, as being all of them "of Satan" ? It's as though "the supernatural" exists, but only within the Bible - anything later, even if it affects the Church, is non-supernatural.

This is Deism applied to the life of the Church - God sets it up, gives it a push, and leaves it to survive as best it can. Its life begins by being supernatural, but once the NT is finished, that's it: it has to survive on its initial impetus - with just the occasional shove of help from God, at loooong intervals.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Except it clearly is, since the Church canonized Scripture.

## IMO, you're both right The Church - of the OT onwards - is the secondary & instrumental author of the books of the Bible, including the tradition that is the whole history of the texts of the books & the canon; God being the (Transcendent) Primary Author. God did not write Romans - Paul or his secretaries did; though the ideas were Paul's. God did not sit down and write the Festal Letter of St. Athanasius in 367 that lists the books - St.Athanasius or a secretary did. God was not one of the Fathers at the Council of Carthage in 393 - the Fathers of the Council were. And so on, down to now. The Bible is the Church's book, the Book of the Community, first; only secondarily is it the book of the individual.

 

[Hairy Tic]

In other words, since the doctrines of Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary being Co-Redeemer Co-Mediatrix and Advocate, Mary being Queen of Heaven, Mary being full of grace, Mary giving out signal graces, the doctrine of purgatory, etc., are not found in the Word of God, they bring dishonor to God.

I fully agree.

## That means the New Testament you are using, in order to find those things absent from it, "bring dishonour to God".

1. It does indeed, and for many reasons, of which a few follow:

• Jesus does refer to a new testament - but not one in writing.
• He nowhere lists any of its books
• He does not even hint there will be fresh books of the Bible
• No prophet - such as Agabus - & no Apostle nor any other Christian indicates that the Holy Spirit wishes to inspire new sacred writings.
• The only books quoted in the NT are those of the OT, or on the fringes of the OT.
• The NT never lists any of the books of the NT - still less does it list all 27
• The Bible of Jesus was the OT - "if they will not believe Moses and the Prophets, they will not believe, though one should rise from the dead". By normal Fundamentalist logic, that means there can no more revelation, no more Bible, no more sacred books.
• If the NT were so important - why is there no mention of a list of inspired books in the NT ? By normal Fundamentalist logic, it's not mentioned, because its not important.
• By normal Calvinist logic, whatever Scripture does not explicitly require for Christian worship, has no place therein. The 27-book NT is not explicitly required for Christian worship - therefore, it has no place therein.
• More; it is sinful, & an offence against the Divinely-ordained plan for worship set forth in the Word of God, to use anything not required therein; therefore, it is a sin to read the 27-book NT therein.

Since the Church early fell into apostasy, it is evident that the carnal & ungodly men who composed the works that are in the 27-book NT did so, not at the prompting of God, but from lack of faith in Christ, since it is easier to follow a seen book than an unseen Saviour. It is therefore evident that the composition of this apostate volume is the fruit of the interior apostasy of the Church. Something from so foul a source can have no place in the Church of God, which must be reformed from the use thereof; the 27-book NT must therefore be repented of, & utterly cast out, as being wholly contrary to the declared & open Will of God.

This is not to deny all utility to each and all of those books - but, though they may be of some spiritual profit, yet the lack of all Scriptural warrant for them is a certain proof that they proof, that they can have no higher dignity than that of uninspired writings.

2. On a more serious note: "By Scripture alone" is not a teaching of the NT Church in the NT. It rests on no sure warrant of Scripture, and is negated by the example of Christ, Who often told parables. They are often suggested by the OT - but they are not limited to it. Only on occasion does He engage in exposition of the text, usually when a text is used against what is said to be true of Him.

3. The NT was not "found in the Word of God" - Peter did not hand out portions of Acts 2 when speaking of Christ after the Descent of the Spirit. Jesus did not hand out Matthew 5 to 7 - or any part of the gospels - at the Sermon on the Mount. All this was Tradition, before it was "inscripturated" as part of a text for reading. What Paul "handed on" to Corinthians in 1 Cor.11 was a tradition - not a sacred text, let alone a collection of 27 writings all alike recognised as having Divine authority. Any notion that the Apostles were Sola Scripturists is an optical illusion, produced by treating the finally canonised NT of AD 400 or so as though it - & all the parts of it - had existed in that form from its very beginnings in the Church.

4. Since those "Marian doctrines" all pre-date the recognition of the 27-book NT, their absence from it is neither here nor there; the objection that they are not in it, falls to the ground. How could they be condemned for failing to be in a collection of books which was made later than they came into being ? Of course they are absent from it - it is younger than they are.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Computers aren't in the word of God.
Cars aren't the word of God.
Hospitals aren't in the word of God.
Altar calls aren't in the word of God
Sola Scriptura isn't in the word of God
"Believers' Baptisms" aren't in the word of God.

The bring dishonor to God.

## Don't forget missionary societies

 

[Hairy Tic]

## I like it !

Thanks for posting that

 

[Hairy Tic]

Repeating yourself isn't going to do anything.



The fact that I am doing it in a religious context does nothing to effect what I am doing. I prayed to the clerk of the court for a boon (a deferment). I prayed to the Mother of God for a boon (her prayers). Neither is worship.



Feel free to elaborate anytime.



Because its patently ridiculous.

Bowing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Bowing (also called stooping) is the act of lowering the torso and head as a social gesture in direction to another person or symbol. It is most prominent in Asian cultures but it is also typical of nobility and aristocracy in many countries and distinctively in Europe. Sometimes the gesture may be limited to lowering the head. It is especially prominent in China, Korea, India, Taiwan, Japan, and Vietnam where it may be executed standing or kneeling."


Do I really have to explain further to you that bowing is a social gesture?

## If the US had a royal monarchy, as in the UK - rather than a republican one - the bowing thing might not be an issue. The Orthodox stand for the Divine Liturgy, to honour God Himself. (They seem not to go in for prostrations, which is a shame.) These attempts to divine people's internal intentions from their external posture are too absurd for words.

 

[Hairy Tic]

His own words, iaconic. He looked beyond Scriptures and to traditions.

The reason he looked beyond the Scriptures is because Scripture did not agree with his belief.

And where did I say he was 'not a real Christian' in my previous post? If we are to believe many, he was a real Christian.

I do find it interesting that Athanasius made such a quote stating one could see Mary as still being virgin if one goes beyond Scripture and looks to Tradition, yet elsewhere he was stated to say:

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Here, he taught Sola Scriptura, yet earlier he taught one needs to look beyond Scriiptures and look to tradition?

James 1:8 comes to mind.

According to bible.ca, Athanasius held that tradition always agreed with Scripture. If this is true, then the quote concerning Mary remaining a virgin allledgedly spoken by Athanasius was not actually embraced or taught by him at all. He said that tradition always agreed with Scripture. And Scripture clearly reveals that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.
[/FONT]

## He was a bishop of the true Church, not a bishop of one of the sects. Therefore, he read the Bible from the Church's POV. This is the very opposite of those sects and heresies which attack the Faith he spent his life defending, and the more recent ones, which try to set the Church against itself by using the Bible against Tradition: which is a thoroughly unnatural proceeding. This is like making a man's feet fight his head - only chaos can follow.

There is no right understanding of Scripture outside the Tradition which provides that understanding, the Tradition which was the matrix for the growth of Scripture. That is is how Scripture is to be read - not put at the mercy of the individual, to have private fantasies read into it; but to be received from the true Church, which has the right understanding of it. So there is no contradiction between looking to Scripture, & looking to Tradition.

It is a Protestant tradition, not the teaching of Scripture, that Mary definitely did not remain a virgin. "Definitely" is important - for some, their conviction that she did not stay a virgin seems to be very important; this gives their position a character it lacks in some Fathers who held a superficially similar position. The people named in the texts brought to prove she had other children, are not called her sons and daughters, but "his brothers and sisters" - which is another matter entirely. To say she did not remain a virgin, is to go beyond the letter of Scripture. Catholics do not claim not to, so Catholicism is not embarrassed by this. Sola Scripturists, by going beyond the letter of Scripture but in the opposite direction, & making it speak when it is silent, undermine their own position; apparently, Scripture is not enough to establish their position.

• Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
• Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
• Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Yes, it is clearly the Church, as St. Victorinus of Pettau and Andrew of Caesarea both write, but it definitely reflects the Theotokos as well, in giving birth to the king.

## I think it's the Heavenly Jerusalem, with features of:

• Israel
• the Church
• the Jerusalem Church in particular
• Mary (= the "Woman" of John's Gospel)
  

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Studious One

His own words, iaconic. He looked beyond Scriptures and to traditions.

The reason he looked beyond the Scriptures is because Scripture did not agree with his belief.

And where did I say he was 'not a real Christian' in my previous post? If we are to believe many, he was a real Christian.

I do find it interesting that Athanasius made such a quote stating one could see Mary as still being virgin if one goes beyond Scripture and looks to Tradition, yet elsewhere he was stated to say:

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Here, he taught Sola Scriptura, yet earlier he taught one needs to look beyond Scriiptures and look to tradition?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]James 1:8 comes to mind.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]According to bible.ca, Athanasius held that tradition always agreed with Scripture. If this is true, then the quote concerning Mary remaining a virgin allledgedly spoken by Athanasius was not actually embraced or taught by him at all. He said that tradition always agreed with Scripture. And Scripture clearly reveals that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.[/FONT]

​

## He was a bishop of the true Church, not a bishop of one of the sects. Therefore, he read the Bible from the Church's POV.

Um....let me guess, the true Church would be the Holy Roman Catholic Church, rather than the One Church to which every person who names Jesus as L-rd and Saviour belongs.

This is the very opposite of those sects and heresies which attack the Faith he spent his life defending, and the more recent ones, which try to set the Church against itself by using the Bible against Tradition: which is a thoroughly unnatural proceeding. This is like making a man's feet fight his head - only chaos can follow.

I think anything that exposes false-teaching is going to come under attack by those that venerate such teachings...Apostle Paul talked about some traditions nullifying the Scriptures, so did Jesus....this human trait had not been eradicated...Some traditions need to be exposed for what they are, and that means myths, lies and falsehoods in some instances.

There is no right understanding of Scripture outside the Tradition which provides that understanding, the Tradition which was the matrix for the growth of Scripture.

That is is how Scripture is to be read - not put at the mercy of the individual, to have private fantasies read into it; but to be received from the true Church, which has the right understanding of it. So there is no contradiction between looking to Scripture, & looking to Tradition.

Forgive me if I am a wee bit sceptical here, what you have written would be amusing if it wasn't such a true indictment....In a word you are claiming that Scripture can only be read a certain way, and that the way for it to be read lies solely in the hands of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, that my friend is sheer nonsense...I'm sure they would like everyone to believe that, but by the grace of G-d many of us do not come under their jurisdiction, and will not succumb to this 'opiate of the people'...we do not belong to the 'Borg Collective'.

It is a Protestant tradition, not the teaching of Scripture, that Mary definitely did not remain a virgin. "Definitely" is important - for some, their conviction that she did not stay a virgin seems to be very important; this gives their position a character it lacks in some Fathers who held a superficially similar position. The people named in the texts brought to prove she had other children, are not called her sons and daughters, but "his brothers and sisters" - which is another matter entirely. To say she did not remain a virgin, is to go beyond the letter of Scripture. Catholics do not claim not to, so Catholicism is not embarrassed by this. Sola Scripturists, by going beyond the letter of Scripture but in the opposite direction, & making it speak when it is silent, undermine their own position; apparently, Scripture is not enough to establish their position.

(Them pesky Sola Scripturists....darn varmints)

I think the Scriptures that you have quoted below are ample demonstration of part of the reason that many from a non-Roman Catholic tradition believe Mary was a virgin up until she gave birth to the L-rd, and why we find no mention of this perpetual virginity within the whole of the New Testament. No one would have a problem with the teaching, but it doesn't seem to be apparent, and technically if she only produced Jesus she would not be called a virgin any longer.

Some of my Orthodox friends have tried to demonstrate very patiently that these brothers and sisters were most likely the children of Joseph that he had before he married Mary, and that he was much older and was more of a guardian than a husband etc....which is not something I reject out-right, and still think about and seek better understanding....

But, this thread is about the so-called assumption of Mary, which is another thing altogether, and again I suppose could be a possibility, but is not something we see in the Bible, and those that promote this teaching generally do so because of other dogmas surrounding Mary, not least of which would be their reference to her sinlessness which I do reject immediately....therefore I think the assumption of her dead body is conjecture.

• Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
• Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
• Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Also it is good to consider:-

Matthew 1: 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I have read the arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary and at this moment have not reached a conclusion. I can see the arguments for that view and see it as an issue which does not affect a person's relationship to our Lord. I do not see any need on insisting that Mary had other children, since the idea that Joseph may have been a widower with children of his own is an old tradition and they could have been Jesus brothers and sisters. My conclusion is that I do not know yet and will study this further. oopps wrong thread. Sorry

 

[Mark_Sam]

I have read the arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary and at this moment have not reached a conclusion. I can see the arguments for that view and see it as an issue which does not affect a person's relationship to our Lord. I do not see any need on insisting that Mary had other children, since the idea that Joseph may have been a widower with children of his own is an old tradition and they could have been Jesus brothers and sisters. My conclusion is that I do not know yet and will study this further. oopps wrong thread. Sorry

This could also be said about the assumption of Mary.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

## He was a bishop of the true Church, not a bishop of one of the sects. Therefore, he read the Bible from the Church's POV. This is the very opposite of those sects and heresies which attack the Faith he spent his life defending, and the more recent ones, which try to set the Church against itself by using the Bible against Tradition: which is a thoroughly unnatural proceeding. This is like making a man's feet fight his head - only chaos can follow.

There is no right understanding of Scripture outside the Tradition which provides that understanding, the Tradition which was the matrix for the growth of Scripture. That is is how Scripture is to be read - not put at the mercy of the individual, to have private fantasies read into it; but to be received from the true Church, which has the right understanding of it. So there is no contradiction between looking to Scripture, & looking to Tradition.

It is a Protestant tradition, not the teaching of Scripture, that Mary definitely did not remain a virgin. "Definitely" is important - for some, their conviction that she did not stay a virgin seems to be very important; this gives their position a character it lacks in some Fathers who held a superficially similar position. The people named in the texts brought to prove she had other children, are not called her sons and daughters, but "his brothers and sisters" - which is another matter entirely. To say she did not remain a virgin, is to go beyond the letter of Scripture. Catholics do not claim not to, so Catholicism is not embarrassed by this. Sola Scripturists, by going beyond the letter of Scripture but in the opposite direction, & making it speak when it is silent, undermine their own position; apparently, Scripture is not enough to establish their position.

• Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
• Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
• Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Yes, it's a "Reformed Protestant" tradition. While the RCC considers Confessional Lutherans "protestant", we, ourselves, do not, as we have little in common with Reformed Protestants.

Unlike most Protestant Churches, Sola Scriptura is held, but only as far as Scripture goes. Traditions, beliefs, practices etc. which are not forbidden by, or conflict with Scripture may be, and are, for the most part retained.

Confessional Lutherans, as per tradition, and the Book of Concord, confess the Perpetual Virginity, as it does not conflict with Scripture.

We may also hold belief in the Assumption/Dormation; beliefs which were/are traditionally held by Christians from the early beginnings of the Church. These beliefs are not contradicted or forbidden by Scripture either BTW. It is no coincidence that our celebration of the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord falls on the same date as the Assumption/Dormation. Likewise, our Confessions confess Mary as Theotokis, Mother of God.

It matters little if we like it or not, we Lutherans, RCs and EOs, have far more in common with each other than we have with the reformed protestants.

God bless,

Mark

 

[Zeek]

Unlike most Protestant Churches, Sola Scriptura is held, but only as far as Scripture goes. Traditions, beliefs, practices etc. which are not forbidden by, or conflict with Scripture may be, and are, for the most part retained.

Hey Mark....I can't think of a single person I know from various Protestant traditions that would have any problem with what you have stated...except they choose not to retain some of the traditions you probably retain...and perhaps have a few of their own that you don't follow. This whole Sola Scriptura thing is grossly exaggerated, and is mostly used as a means to bite back at those that disagree with some traditions kept by some denominations, that are in direct conflict with Scripture.

 

[Thekla]

We do know the Scriptures, Zazal

Including those about Mary