The "article" is a load of anti-catholic junk. It either negligently or purposefully misrepresents the Early Fathers and the History of the Doctrine:Lollard said:Thanks Bubba,
As far as the assumption being a tradition of your church I will say you are correct. Here is a great article on the subject for anyone who is interested.
1. Far from being "only adopted" in 1950, the Assumption has been a central part of Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental teaching for at least fifteen centuries.
2. Epiphanius of Salamis is not taking about the Assumption when he says no-one knows whether Mary died. He is talking about whether Mary was taken into heaven without passing through death, or whether she died and was resurrected before being assumed into heaven - an issue which is still a matter of debate in the Church.
3. The idea that Pope Gelasius ever condemned the Doctrine of the Assumption is nonsense. No one is on record as condemning the doctrine of the Assumption. In fact the feast of the Assumption on 15th August was made a public holiday throughout the Empire in 600 AD. Gelasius condemned a bundle of heretical works, which included heretical accounts of the Assumption and other doctrines. This does not mean that everything recorded in the heretical writings is therefore declared heretical! Otherwise events such as the crucifixion, also recorded in such documents would have been declared heretical beliefs as well. In fact the Church preserved non-heretical transitus accounts of the Assumption.
4. Gnostics would hardly invent stories of the Assumption of Mary as the "article" alleges, since the body and therefore a bodily assumption were considered totally unclean by Gnostics. The last thing they would have taught was a bodily assumption.
Really? Then why does this not convince the Unitarians, "Oneness" Christians, LDS, Jehovahs Witnesses, Arians, Gnostics, Adoptionists and other bible-as-authority groups, who do not see the Trinity so clearly set out in the Bible as you claim?As far as the Trinity, you are right, there is no word in the Bible that says trinity. But when reading the Bible you see three distinct Deities from the very beginning to the end. It is very easy to see that the three Deities are one Deity, by reading the scriptures.
The arguments we've had on this board regarding the incarnation of Christ, with large numbers of "bible christians" denying the completeness of the incarnation disprove your claim.If we were to hold a council of the churches today it would be easy to reformulate what the early church saw in this manner, by using the scriptures.
Untrue on all counts. Regarding the 5th century, this is the date of the earliest known surviving parchment describing the Assumption. It is by no means the earliest date for belief in the Assumption.These two doctrines do not even belong in the same breath. One is verifiable and proven to be true through scriptures, the other is based on graduted theory that started in the fifth century.
Both the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Assumption are validated and defined by church tradition. Validation can be found for both in scripture, but neither can be proved beyond argument solely from scripture. Many have used and still use scripture to argue that Jesus was not fully God, or is not fully God and fully man, or that the Holy Spirit emanates from God but is not God.
Upvote
0