|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 1:19:23 AM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jb_Ca
We should first examine whether or not there is any scriptual support for this notion.
Indeed, there is not.
God bless
Jesus predicted that the Temple would be destroyed. And it was, by the Romans. But guess what: That event is not in the Bible. Nevertheless, it was an actual historical event, regardless of the fact that it is not in the Bible.
Mary's assumption is an actual event, regardless of the fact that it is not in the Bible. That's what wrong with "Sola Scriptura": It gives you a myopic view of Christianity.
.
.
Interestingly enough, it is stated elsewhere in scripture. Look to the OT.
I can assume that you can show us that Scripture???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 1:21:32 AM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: authorcrat
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jet_A_Jockey
the assumption of mary, from an outside perspective, looks to be the end of a line of doctrine created to explain one simple question: How could the Holy Son of God come to earth in an earthly (fallen) vessel?
And tada, here ya have it, immaculate conception which leads to sinless nature which leads to perpetual virginity which leads to bodily assumption into heaven
Fill in the blanks with some non-canonical filler and there you have it.
God bless.
The Assumption of Mary has its roots from the early Church, it is not some late invention of the 20th Century. It is wild conspiracy theory that it was invented to support the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity, it was an inevitable conclusion to those Catholic doctrines.
You may not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, which is fine. You may feel that you are better informed, and formed, than the early Church Fathers who were closer to the Apostles’ era and have more access to ancient documents, which is also fine. But maybe it is better to be properly equipped with the facts before shooting from the hips. It makes for a better debate.
From the 5th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria;
The 5th and 6th Century:
The Apocryphal Books were testimony of a certain Christian sense of the abhorency felt that the body of the Mother of God should lie in a sepulchre;
The 6th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Jerusalem (and perhaps even in Alexandria);
From the 7th Century:
Clear and explicit testimony was given on the Assumption of Mary in the Eastern Church; The same testimony is clear also in the Western Church (Gregory, Tours, 538-594);
In the 9th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Spain;
From the 10th - 12th Century:
No dispute whatsoever in the Western Church; there was dispute over the false epistles of Jerome on the subject;
In the 12th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in the city of Rome, and in France;
From the 13th to present:
Certain and undisputed faith in the Assumption of Mary in the universal Church;
1950, Pope Pius XII, declared infallibly, ex cathedra:
"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory."
How about something that woulc count—such as from the first, second or third century???? We know the Scriptures didn't say anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 1:29:01 AM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JesKlu
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Outside of the present discussion: do you think that is a possibility? It becomes an unprovable statement of faith - one way or the other.
Kind of like Tachyons (Google this if you don't know what these are...)
If God hid Mary, did He hide her in heaven...? Is that possibility on the list?
A lot of these discussions are getting a bit silly in the details and semantics.
For this Catholic, all of the press on Mary has to do with what I can hope for in the fulfillment of God's promises for mere mortal souls such as mine, and such as yours. Mary was mere flesh and bones, just like me. But by the power of God's grace, she was prepared and kept to bear our Savior, and when her earthly time was finished, her pristine person was assumed into heaven.
Where are all those 'rapture' folks in the "End Times" thread when you need them?
It almost seems to be a contradiction in position. I believe that God made sure that many saints' remains were hidden, but I don't believe in the assumption of Mary. Neither one is provable. 
Anywho...come pre-tribbers!!! 
Only a few of the saints remains are hidden, The ones who are extra-special, like Moses and Mary. Why? 'Cause these are the kinds of people Satan wants to mess around with most, so God has to take it into his own hands and hide their remains.
But it's awfully funny also that it is these 2 people, Moses and Mary, where stories were made up about being assumed into heaven. I feel that's odd.
We have Scripture sayins that God buried Moses where noone could find him. He is still dead and in the grave. As for Mary, we don't know what happened to her but you can bet she died and was buried. If she had been taken to heaven, then the Scriptures would not neglect scuch an event.
Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 6:41:14 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WildByNature
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
Jesus predicted that the Temple would be destroyed. And it was, by the Romans. But guess what: That event is not in the Bible. Nevertheless, it was an actual historical event, regardless of the fact that it is not in the Bible.
Mary's assumption is an actual event, regardless of the fact that it is not in the Bible.
Pardon me, but guess what ... the destruction of the Temple WAS prophesied in God's word and historical evidence CAN prove the fulfillment of this prophecy.
Whereas, Mary's supposed assumption was NOT prophesied in God's word and historical evidence can NOT prove any such event ever took place.
How can such a comparison between these two events possibly hope to persuade belief in an extra-biblical assumption? 
I SAID the destruction was prophesied. But the actual destruction is not in the Bible. My point is that an event need not be in the Bible to be true, and I am correct.
Mary's assumption is fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 9:26:45 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Problem being that Mary being immaculately conceived isn't in the Bible either, so...
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 9:29:59 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Problem being that Mary being immaculately conceived isn't in the Bible either, so...
So what.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 9:44:56 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 660
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Problem being that Mary being immaculately conceived isn't in the Bible either, so...
So what.
So what, that is the point of the matter at hand. Where in the world are you going to stop this thought pattern. Mary was used of God as was Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. Please oh please stop worshipping a human and start worshipping the creator of all seen and unseen.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 9:51:03 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4921
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Problem being that Mary being immaculately conceived isn't in the Bible either, so...
And neither is her sinlessness, as a matter of fact just the opposite is there;
(Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my new book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 9:59:19 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Problem being that Mary being immaculately conceived isn't in the Bible either, so...
And neither is her sinlessness, as a matter of fact just the opposite is there;
(Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Really? Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. There's three. Babies, while they may be born into original sin, do not commit personal sins. There's more.
I suggest you learn the Hebrewism behind the word "all". The Bible says "all Judea" was baptized by John. Obviously, the man did not baptise an entire country. Its Hebrew hyperbole.
You cannot understand the Bible if you know nothing about the manner of speeech of the men who wrote it.
.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 10:38:48 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Really? Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. There's three. Babies, while they may be born into original sin, do not commit personal sins. There's more.
Adam and Eve sinned, though, obviously.
Jesus is the only person stated by the Bible to be sinless. If Mary was sinless, don't you think that would be a Big Deal? Big enough to, say, merit a mention?
Same with the assumption. Assumption is such a Big Deal in the Bible that there's one guy (Enoch) that all we even know about him was that he was righteous enough that God took him. Surely the assumption of Mary would be a Big Deal enough to merit a mention in the Bible.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 10:51:25 AM
|
|
|
WildByNature
Posts: 446
Joined: 3/17/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
I SAID the destruction was prophesied. But the actual destruction is not in the Bible. My point is that an event need not be in the Bible to be true, and I am correct.
In your haste to make a declaratin of infallibility, you fail to see your error. You admit the destruction IS in the Bible -- it was prophecied as early as Moses; one can also read Ezekiel for the details of the destruction that was to come. To the contrary, Mary's assumption is NOT in the Bible at all.
Does an event relating to what we are to believe in need to be in the Bible? I think so, otherwise people believe anything they want -- possibly to their own destruction. If scripture is silent, we should remain silent -- for now we know in part (1Cor 13:9). There is danger in claiming special gnosis that scripture does not reveal -- such as worshiping a mere woman.
quote:
Mary's assumption is fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant.
If one erroneously believes Mary was the ark, one can then make such an assumption. However, such a theory would have to be proven by scripture, and it cannot be proven. The ark of the covenant was symbolic of the presence of God = Jesus = Emmanuel = God with us. You cannot get a better fit than that -- and there is no need for a tailored "fitting".
quote:
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself!
All believers bear the "ark" (Jesus) as His Spirit resides in them -- All believers are being sanctified. What makes Mary so much more worthy to be sanctified than anyone else who hears and keeps the Word of God?
Luk 11:27-28: As He thus spoke a woman in the crowd called out in a loud voice, "Blessed is the mother who carried you, and the breasts that you have sucked." "Nay rather," He replied, "they are blessed who hear God's Message and carefully keep it."
quote:
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
Fittingness??? Nothing you've said has fit with scripture thus far without tailoring scripture to suit your needs. Nevertheless, you cannot prove Mary was immaculately conceived from scripture.
In addition, if you wish to claim immaculate conception is the cause of escaping the grave, how would you justify those such as Enoch and Elijah, who did not experience death either? Were they immaculately conceived also?
_____________________________
"Stop being afraid! Just keep on believing." (Mark 5:36 ISV)
<><
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 3:09:38 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
Really? Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. There's three. Babies, while they may be born into original sin, do not commit personal sins. There's more.
Adam and Eve sinned, though, obviously.....
Obviously. But the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is, among other things, that "the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin" (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). My example of Adam and Eve and Jesus was to point out that this is not unheard of. Also, typologically, it makes sense, when you understand that Mary is the "New Eve". Death came to us by the old Adam and the old Eve; life comes to us by the New Adam and the New Eve.
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation. He teaches that Christ embodied Adam and all his posterity in order to redeem mankind from sin. Basing his teaching on Paul’s inspired doctrine of Christ as the Last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), Irenaeus viewed Jesus as reversing the effects of Adam’s sin by bringing the life and righteousness that Adam lost (cf. Rom. 5:17, 18). Irenaeus saw the obvious implication. As Eve cooperated with Adam, the covenant head of humanity, so Mary cooperated with Jesus Christ, the covenant head of the new humanity. Thus Irenaeus says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4). Later he says of these two virgins, "Just as the human race was subject to death by a virgin, it was freed by a virgin, with the virginal disobedience balanced by virginal obedience" (ibid., 5.19.1).
But I am digressing into the Mary's sinlessness, which is in another thread, I think. I just wanted to make the point. You guys should read this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 3:12:35 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4921
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
But I am digressing into the Mary's sinlessness, which is in another thread, I think. I just wanted to make the point. You guys should read this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
When was this fantacy of the "Assumption of Mary" declared to be fact?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my new book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 3:17:17 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
But I am digressing into the Mary's sinlessness, which is in another thread, I think. I just wanted to make the point. You guys should read this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
When was this fantacy of the "Assumption of Mary" declared to be fact?
I will not respond to sarcastic questions. Ask it in a respectful manner and then I will answer.
.
< Message edited by TheCatholicCrusader -- 7/25/2008 6:44:33 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 6:32:32 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4921
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
But I am digressing into the Mary's sinlessness, which is in another thread, I think. I just wanted to make the point. You guys should read this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
When was this fantacy of the "Assumption of Mary" declared to be fact?
I will not respond to sarcastic questions. Ask it in a respectful manner and then I will answer.
If you can't do that, at least spell it correctly.
When and by what Pope was this falsehood declared to be the truth?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my new book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 7:04:16 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: authorcrat
The Assumption of Mary has its roots from the early Church, it is not some late invention of the 20th Century. It is wild conspiracy theory that it was invented to support the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity, it was an inevitable conclusion to those Catholic doctrines.
You may not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, which is fine. You may feel that you are better informed, and formed, than the early Church Fathers who were closer to the Apostles’ era and have more access to ancient documents, which is also fine. But maybe it is better to be properly equipped with the facts before shooting from the hips. It makes for a better debate.
From the 5th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria;
The 5th and 6th Century:
The Apocryphal Books were testimony of a certain Christian sense of the abhorency felt that the body of the Mother of God should lie in a sepulchre;
The 6th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Jerusalem (and perhaps even in Alexandria);
From the 7th Century:
Clear and explicit testimony was given on the Assumption of Mary in the Eastern Church; The same testimony is clear also in the Western Church (Gregory, Tours, 538-594);
In the 9th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Spain;
From the 10th - 12th Century:
No dispute whatsoever in the Western Church; there was dispute over the false epistles of Jerome on the subject;
In the 12th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in the city of Rome, and in France;
From the 13th to present:
Certain and undisputed faith in the Assumption of Mary in the universal Church;
1950, Pope Pius XII, declared infallibly, ex cathedra:
"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory."
Thats great information. Let me add an even earlier quote, by Timothy of Jerusalem (c. 400 AD).
"...some have supposed that the Mother of the Lord was put to death with a sword and won for herself a martyr's end. Their reason lies in the words of Simeon, 'And your own soul a sword shall pierce.' But such is not the case. A metal sword, you see, cleaves the body; it does not cut the soul in two. Therefore, the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that He who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption.."
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 9:23:13 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
.
Well, lets see here:
quote:
...... Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day......
.....Assumption in Anglicanism
The Prayer Books of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada mark August 15 as the "Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary". Anglo-Catholics often observe the feast day under the same name as Roman Catholics.
In the Episcopal Church, August 15 is observed as the commemoration "Of the Blessed Virgin Mary", and the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statement on the Virgin Mary assigns a place for both the Dormition and the Assumption in Anglican devotion
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
So I guess the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans obey the Pope now? No, they just know the truth, that Mary was assumed into heaven
.
< Message edited by TheCatholicCrusader -- 7/25/2008 9:29:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/25/2008 9:48:47 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 462
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
.
Well, lets see here:
quote:
...... Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day......
.....Assumption in Anglicanism
The Prayer Books of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada mark August 15 as the "Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary". Anglo-Catholics often observe the feast day under the same name as Roman Catholics.
In the Episcopal Church, August 15 is observed as the commemoration "Of the Blessed Virgin Mary", and the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statement on the Virgin Mary assigns a place for both the Dormition and the Assumption in Anglican devotion
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
So I guess the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans obey the Pope now? No, they just know the truth, that Mary was assumed into heaven
.
Hello TheCatholicCrusader
In the wisdom that you have may I ask you what is the Apostle Paul warning us about related to these men saying that the resurrection has already happened. And from what thee Apostle Paul said, what then is the repercussion today for thoughs who rejected this warning?
2 Timothy 2:14-19
A Worker Approved by God
14Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. 19But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."
(ESV)
...Also what do you believe if I may ask about the Nicene Creed where the Creed talks about the resurrection of the dead?...
First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
http://home.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm
Peter
< Message edited by PeterD -- 7/25/2008 10:03:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/26/2008 10:13:29 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
http://home.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm
Very nice. I stand and profess that Creed every Sunday in church. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, any more than it has to do with Enoch being "caught up".
.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/26/2008 12:24:16 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 543
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello everyone who believes in the Assumption,
It was no earlier than the 5th century that the Assumption of Mary is ever mentioned.
The Catholic Encyclopedia even admits this.
The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
This is the story of the Assumption, which is probably a sixth century narrative.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/texts/dormitionG2/dormitionG2.htm
Since it is a sixth century narrative, we cannot really say this work is trustworthy evidence, because it is not. It was written Six centuries after Christianity began. And people started to celebrate her assumption in the 5th century, no earlier.
And last but not least, there is no scriptural proof. An assumption into heaven is a cause for celebration, and if it did happen, that would've been mentioned, especially by the Apostle John, who took care of her. Wouldn't he want to spread the good news of this event by writing it down, like what happened with Enoch and Elijah? And it is the Apostle John who was given the revelation of Jesus Christ in the book of Revelation, and the Lord would have revealed her plainly for us to know where she is through the Apostle John who has been given eyes to see and ears to hear the truth about Jesus Christ. The Aplpha and the Omega.
I am not saying we should just put aside Mary and say she didn't play a role in the salvation of mankind. She played a big role by bringing the eternal Son of God made flesh into the world. And because of that she is deemed worthy to be called mother of God (Theotokos). But, to say she is assumed without scriptural evidence is playing with God, where it says in Holy Scripture, like in 3 different places, not to add or subtract.
Deuteronomy 4:2
2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.(ESV)
1 Corinthians 4:6
6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.(ESV)
Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (ESV)
Let us notice these three Scripture passages and what they represent. These are 3 different men in three different time periods writing the same thing. So, this is a warning we should all take heed. We cannot go beyond, or take lightly, what the Word of God says.
Therefore, let us put into practice what it says by not going beyond what the written Word says.
And if one chooses to go beyond what is written, you will find yourself becoming more and more ungodly.
2nd Timothy 2:16-17
16But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17and their talk will spread like gangrene.(ESV)
2 Peter 3
15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica
_____________________________
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/26/2008 12:52:49 PM
|
|
|
AboundinginHisGrace
Posts: 210
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
I can not say for sure if Mary ascended into heaven or not, I was not there, but the bible never says that she did. So why in the world would anyone assume that she did, much less make it a doctrinal belief. I mean if she did ascend into heaven (without dieing) I would imagine it would be in the scriptures.
_____________________________
"What a mercy it is that it is not your hold of Christ that saves you, but his hold of you." - Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/26/2008 1:00:20 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
