The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

[Dark_Lite]

Did the process of canonization change the actual content of the original writings?

Do we not have the writings at our disposal today?

Your point is moot.

Ah, the magic "Council authority stops when it begins to disagree with my beliefs" answer. So, what did Christians for the first 400 years do since they weren't sure of what constituted the canon? For Sola Scriptura to work, one must be absolutely sure of the contents of the canon. Otherwise, the possibility for horrible error creeps in.

The point is that from the beginning, Christianity was not a religion based on "Scripture Alone." It couldn't be. It was impossible. At first there were no Scriptures, and after that, people weren't sure what constituted the Scriptures. There is no reason to assume that the nature of Christianity changed so drastically such that Tradition became worthless after the canon was completed.

In fact, the canon wasn't even closed at those regional Councils. It was just solidified. Technically, the canon was open all the way up until Trent in the Catholic Church (and by extension open for Protestants up they made their Confessions).

Hey, while your at it...grab a sharpie and mark through the word 'Holy' on your Bible...since you obviously don't consider it to be. Will you consider carnal men to be holy while rejecting the truth written?

You can't cite a passage from the Bible that says "the Bible is true" in order to prove the Bible is true. It's circular logic.

Or am I wrong, do you consider the Bible to be true? Is it infallible and inerrant?

You are most horribly wrong, and I would appreciate it if you don't make such egregious, baseless accusations. Nothing in my posts could possibly be construed that I believe the Bible to be fallible or errant. Indeed, nothing in my posts could possibly be construed that I believe the Bible to be infallible or inerrant. The inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible is unrelated to whether or not all Christian beliefs are contained within the Bible.

 

[98cwitr]

That's some brain washing stuff right there...let's discredit the Bible and then suggest that our writings and way of thinking can improve upon Christianity or shed some sort of epiphanic insight upon scripture b/c it's incomplete or inconclusive...yeah Im not buying that. That seems like the makings of carnal Christianity...where "we're right because we are divinely inspired"....sounds like somebody's tooting their own righteous horn there:

So then I'm asking you.... blatantly and as directly as I possibly can: Do you believe that the Bible is true?

It's a closed ended question btw.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So then I'm asking you.... blatantly and as directly as I possibly can: Do you believe that the Bible is true?

It's a closed ended question btw.

I think

You are most horribly wrong

in response to

Or am I wrong, do you consider the Bible to be true? Is it infallible and inerrant?

would be sufficiently clear enough to answer your question.

The answer is yes. But that doesn't mean A) everything about Christianity has to be in the Bible, B) everything Christianity is in the Bible, or C) that it is at all related to this topic.

 

[98cwitr]

I think



in response to



would be sufficiently clear enough to answer your question.

nope, it's not...please be more specific.

 

[AveMaria_45]

So what you are telling us is that you don't read a Bible at all?

see? i just said that everyone talks here and no one listens. i never said i don't read the bible. that was a stupid question. what a tool.

little lamb asked what bible we read in church and i said that the bible readings are all printed out in booklets out so we don't have to flop through a bunch of bibles in the church. i never said i don't read the bible.

why bother posting stuff here when no one reads what u say.

 

[Dark_Lite]

nope, it's not...please be more specific.

See edited response.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by AveMaria_45 the bible readings are printed in a booklet.
thats better than flopping around through a ton a bibles and making a bunch of noise.

So what you are telling us is that you don't read a Bible at all?

According to their Pope, he actually encourages them to know the Bible. EO's and Protestants have known that for centuries tho ehehe

http://www.christianforums.com/t7292310-10/#post48827154
Catholics must know Bible to live Christian lives, Pope says

Catholics must know the Bible and meditate on the Scriptures in order to live fully Christian lives, Pope Benedict XVI told the bishops of Uruguay.

 

[98cwitr]

see? i just said that everyone talks here and no one listens. i never said i don't read the bible. that was a stupid question. what a tool.

little lamb asked what bible we read in church and i said that the bible readings are all printed out in booklets out so we don't have to flop through a bunch of bibles in the church. i never said i don't read the bible.

why bother posting stuff here when no one reads what u say.

But do you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by AveMaria_45 <snip>
why bother posting stuff here when no one reads what u say.

But do you?

I do and like EF Hutton:

YouTube - 80's EF Hutton Commercial

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

What proof is there that Mary, mother of Jesus, was bodily assumed? (I thought she was awaiting resurrection just like all the dead).

What proof is there of anything?

Also, the Bible is clear that the souls of the dead are in Heaven or Hell, not somehow insensate or "sleeping", but that is perhaps a different thread.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Mary gave some of the best advice that is recorded in the Bible.


Remember the wedding?

John 2:1-2
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
KJV


This is what Mary said!

John 2:5
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
KJV

Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it!

That is what Mary instructed.

No one knew or knows Jesus like Mary, thus there is no better way to follow Jesus than by following Mary.

They[the elect] are subject and obedient to our Lady, their good Mother, and here they are simply following the example set by our Lord himself, who spent thirty of the thirty-three years he lived on earth glorifying God his Father in perfect and entire submission to his holy Mother. They obey her, following her advice to the letter, just as Jacob followed that of Rebecca, when she said to him, "My son, follow my advice"; or like the stewards at the wedding in Cana, to whom our Lady said, "Do whatever he tells you."

Through obedience to his mother, Jacob received the blessing almost by a miracle, because in the natural course of events he should not have received it. As a reward for following the advice of our Lady, the stewards at the wedding in Cana were honoured with the first of our Lord's miracles when, at her request he changed water into wine. In the same way, until the end of time, all who are to receive the blessing of our heavenly Father and who are to be honoured with his wondrous graces will receive them only as a result of their perfect obedience to Mary. On the other hand, the "Esaus" will lose their blessing because of their lack of submission to the Blessed Virgin.

How do we follow Mary? By following Jesus. How do we follow Jesus? By following Mary. The two cannot be separated because the will of Mary was and is perfectly conformed to the will of her Divine Son.

 

[Standing Up]

What proof is there of anything?

Also, the Bible is clear that the souls of the dead are in Heaven or Hell, not somehow insensate or "sleeping", but that is perhaps a different thread.

Aside from Mary, do you folks teach that anyone else has been bodily resurrected since Jesus' ascension?

 

[AveMaria_45]

But do you?

do i what

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Aside from Mary, do you folks teach that anyone else has been bodily resurrected since Jesus' ascension?

No, not since (but you could count Elijah and Enoch as being bodily in Limbo/Hades prior to the coming of Christ and then going into Heaven body and soul united -- but this isn't dogmatic).

But everyone else will be raised from the dead and reunited body and soul in Heaven/New Earth at the end of time. The fact that this happened to Mary, the Mother of God, first is a promise of what is to come for the rest of us.

 

[Standing Up]

No, not since (but you could count Elijah and Enoch as being bodily in Limbo/Hades prior to the coming of Christ and then going into Heaven body and soul united -- but this isn't dogmatic).

But everyone else will be reunited body and soul in Heaven/New Earth at the end of time.

The reason I asked was because of types/shadows of harvests (barley-OT, wheat-NT, grapes-other) to see whether Mary and others would fit the pattern.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Aside from Mary, do you folks teach that anyone else has been bodily resurrected since Jesus' ascension?

Good question!

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That is because it is not about her.

It is about Jesus.

And what is Mary about? Jesus.

 

[Kepha]

That's the way history works. Sometimes one person doesn't know something. Then later people find out more information. This doesn't mean it wasn't contained within the faith transmitted to the Church from the Apostles who saw it happen. Epiphanius was a bishop but he is still just one man.

I would agree with another post on here where it seems that the earliest Christians chose to remain silent about Mary's Assumption so that it would not take away from the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. Basically, too much to handle at once, when the Church was only in a state of infancy still fighting hersey such as Gnosticism, Monarchiansm, Ariansim, and Montanism.

And to bring into context the frame of mind of Epiphanius when writing about Mother Mary's end, two heresy's were circulating through sects known as Antidicomarianites, and the Collyridians. The former denied the perpetual virginity of Mary where as the latter went in the opposite direction, and stated that Divine worship should be given to Her.

We can also see a hint of evidence in His writings a bit later when He just slips in the fact of Her Assumption in a very diplomatic yet cautious way where two of the three possible ends, it explicitly states that Her Body is in Heaven. He does so here as He writes to His Greek faithful about the end of Mary's earthly life.

"Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon's prophecy. There her glory is with the martyrs, and she through Whom the Divine Light Shone Upon the world is in the place of bliss, with Her Sacred Body. Or say she left this world without dying for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory." (Haer. lxxix, 11).

 

[MrPolo]

This silence, at best, is puzzling.

You'd think the Apostles would have listed the canon of the New Testament too, but they didn't. Silence on Mary's death one way or the other is not puzzling if you understand that the Church's doctrine can develop. It's faulty to impose the unbiblical doctrine that every facet of God's revelation is revealed explicitly in Scripture. So I don't think this "they would have said something" rule of yours is applicable.

(Even so, I would argue that Mary's assumption is implicit once you wrap your mind around the typology of Mary as Ark of the Covenant, etc... but I digress)

 

[Dark_Lite]

That's some brain washing stuff right there...let's discredit the Bible and then suggest that our writings and way of thinking can improve upon Christianity or shed some sort of epiphanic insight upon scripture b/c it's incomplete or inconclusive...yeah Im not buying that. That seems like the makings of carnal Christianity...where "we're right because we are divinely inspired"....sounds like somebody's tooting their own righteous horn there:

Didn't notice this little gem of an edit when I first responded to your post. Instead of continuing to make baseless accusations (which I asked you to not do) and continually asserting things, how about you actually address the points of my posts?