|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/26/2008 1:58:37 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 551
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: JesKlu
....there is no scriptural proof. An assumption into heaven is a cause for celebration, and if it did happen, that would've been mentioned....
No, it wouldnt have, especially if she died after the last book was written. And also the Bible itself says that not everything is in the Bible:
John 21: 25: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. "
This proves that Sola Scriptura - and your premise - are incorrect.
.
.
And there are many other things that JESUS did. The Apostle John is talking about Christ's miracles and sayings. There is no indicator in that passage which refers to Mary. And you totally ignored the 3 passages which I quoted which says not to add nor subtract from the written Word of God. So actually, Sola Scriptura is taught very plainly in the Bible.
You cannot just assume Mary was taken up without any written proof. Like with Enoch and Elijah, it was written down that they were taken up. If Mary was taken up, it would've been written down, even after she died. With Enoch and Elijah, those things were written down about them after they were taken up. The same should've happened with Mary, but it didn't. So we cannot suppose she was taken up without any empirical (scriptural) proof.
Soli Deo Gloria!
(To God Alone be the Glory)
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 10:55:36 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JesKlu
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: JesKlu
....there is no scriptural proof. An assumption into heaven is a cause for celebration, and if it did happen, that would've been mentioned....
No, it wouldnt have, especially if she died after the last book was written. And also the Bible itself says that not everything is in the Bible:
John 21: 25: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. "
This proves that Sola Scriptura - and your premise - are incorrect.
.
.
And there are many other things that JESUS did. The Apostle John is talking about Christ's miracles and sayings. There is no indicator in that passage which refers to Mary. And you totally ignored the 3 passages which I quoted which says not to add nor subtract from the written Word of God. So actually, Sola Scriptura is taught very plainly in the Bible.
You cannot just assume Mary was taken up without any written proof. Like with Enoch and Elijah, it was written down that they were taken up. If Mary was taken up, it would've been written down, even after she died. With Enoch and Elijah, those things were written down about them after they were taken up. The same should've happened with Mary, but it didn't. So we cannot suppose she was taken up without any empirical (scriptural) proof.
Soli Deo Gloria!
(To God Alone be the Glory)
Jessica
Sola Scriptura is actually contrary to the scriptures. But that's another thread. Do keep in mind that when we talk about the Theotokos, you yourself mentioned the key truth here. "And there are many other things that JESUS did..."
Who do you think we believe took the Theotokos up? Even in her death and assumption into heaven she gives glory to her Son.
And as to not adding or removing things from scriptures.... Do keep in mind that it was Martin Luther who removed 7 books in his canon....
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/27/2008 1:46:12 AM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 551
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Lurker,
I hear that all the time, that Martin Luther took out the Apocrypha. Actually to be quite honest with you, he didn't.
To be honest with you also, the Apocrypha was not in the Hebrew Old Testament, just in the Septuagiant, which was the Greek translation that not only the Jews but the Samaritans used it mainly, and they were the people who mixed Judaism with false gods.
But Martin Luther did not take it out, he kept it in his translation of the Bible into German and he put the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, which is seen in the Old King James Bibles as proof that Martin Luther did not remove the Apocrypha.
Protestants started to remove the Apocrypha in the later part of the 17th century, and in the 19th century no Protestant bible had the Apocrypha in it.
Martin Luther stated these books as "good to read" but not canonical. So he didn't say don't read them at all.
Q. What is the Lutheran Church's position or teaching regarding the Apocrypha as found in Roman Catholic Bibles?
A. Martin Luther regarded the Apocrypha as "useful historical" writings which Christians should be familiar with and which should even be read in public worship from time to time. But neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2526
The Roman Catholic Church didn't seem to make these books canonical either until the Council of Trent, the counter-reformation.
Soli Deo Gloria!
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? - 7/27/2008 8:13:01 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JesKlu
Hello Lurker,
I hear that all the time, that Martin Luther took out the Apocrypha. Actually to be quite honest with you, he didn't.
To be honest with you also, the Apocrypha was not in the Hebrew Old Testament, just in the Septuagiant, which was the Greek translation that not only the Jews but the Samaritans used it mainly, and they were the people who mixed Judaism with false gods.
But Martin Luther did not take it out, he kept it in his translation of the Bible into German and he put the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, which is seen in the Old King James Bibles as proof that Martin Luther did not remove the Apocrypha.
Protestants started to remove the Apocrypha in the later part of the 17th century, and in the 19th century no Protestant bible had the Apocrypha in it.
Martin Luther stated these books as "good to read" but not canonical. So he didn't say don't read them at all.
Q. What is the Lutheran Church's position or teaching regarding the Apocrypha as found in Roman Catholic Bibles?
A. Martin Luther regarded the Apocrypha as "useful historical" writings which Christians should be familiar with and which should even be read in public worship from time to time. But neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2526
The Roman Catholic Church didn't seem to make these books canonical either until the Council of Trent, the counter-reformation.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Jessica
The books were canonical since the early days of the Church actually. You'll note that even the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox regard them as such, and they have been separated from the Catholic Church for several centuries PRIOR to the Council of Trent so that argument there doesn't really hold much water I'm afraid.
And do keep in mind that most of the early Christians, including the gospel writers and the Apostles used the Septuagint most of the time. It's quite evident from their choice of quotes. Of the 300 or so times the New Testament quoted from the Old, over 2/3rds of the quotes were from the Septuagint translation, not the Hebrew translation.
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/27/2008 9:51:36 AM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 551
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Lurker,
I know the Septuagiant was quoted by Jesus. Why? Because Greek was the universal language of the day, but the Hebrew Canon was still known by the scribes and pharisees. But the Hebrew Canon was the one inspired by God (that is the original language of the Jews). You have to look at all translations of the Old Testament in light of the Hebrew Canon, it was still the normative Old Testament, no matter how wide the Septuagiant was used.
The Apocrypha was never put in the Hebrew Canon, so you do have to question the authenticity of the Apocrypha.
I know Early Christians read from those kinds of books, but I don't believe they taught that they were inspired.
Many of the Early Church Fathers also admit those books are not inspired, including Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin.
And the Eastern Orthodox do not regard the Apocrypha as canonical actually, they go by what many Early Church Fathers say, including St Athanasias and Jerome, saying they are not canonical but a good read. They may have the Apocrypha in their bibles, but that doesn't mean they believe those books are inspired. Many of the Greek Early Church Fathers do not regard those books as canonical, I can prove it.
And it is also interesting that Jesus never quotes from the Apocrypha in the Gospels. Obviously He knew they were not inspired by God.
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? - 7/29/2008 12:10:04 AM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11697
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Please take the discussion of the books of Scripture to the thread about it in the Bible folder. It's in the Index.
Thanks!
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 7/29/2008 6:05:40 PM
|
|
|
schupfNoodle
Posts: 95
Joined: 7/27/2006
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 says everything.
The conception of Jesus was prophesied and mentioned clearly. There's a name for doctrine that peole believe in that are unbiblical.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
