|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/20/2007 12:51:15 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 754
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
What is a mother?
Mary is rightfully called the mother of God. She gave birth to God the Word, Jesus. She raised Him, nursed Him, comforted Him, fed Him, and loved Him in a way unique to all of humanity. She's not a mere "earthly vessel", she is His mother. A very distinct relationship. She carried the Word, God in her womb for 9 months.
To deny her this rightfully earned title denotes an early heretical view. Jesus was not two distinct beings, the man and God. Jesus is both man AND God in one. You can't say that your mother is merely the mother of your fleshly half. She is more than that. Just as Mary is more than the mother of Jesus in the Flesh. She's the mother of Jesus, period. You can't seperate Jesus' fleshly side from His divinity.
_____________________________
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? - 2/20/2007 2:48:16 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 57
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Very interesting thread.
Where do i start.... 
1. "If a Dogma is not in the bible, it does not mean its against the scriptures"
So if someone came out and said "God spoke to me this: during the 40 days that Jesus wandered in the wilderness, he flew in the sky to other nations preaching the scriptures and doing great wonders" OR
"Jesus brought 3 people back from the dead, created a lamb out of thin air, turned the ocean into wine, because John 21:25 says "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." So that would make my vision acceptable to be studied by the CC and possible entered into Dogma?
Shouldnt the Assuption of Mary be categorized as a "Theory"? Much like that of the Catholic idea of Limbo, which was corrected by the Pope not too long ago. So were is the line drawn between a catholic theory, and catholic doctrine? Limbo was studied for years and taught to some(not all), but never had any biblical foundation for it. Almost as similar for the assumption of Mary. Has been studied for years and taught in churches but has almost no biblical foundation for it, only "Assumptions", so why wouldnt this be put under "Theory"?
2. All scripture comes from the Bible (ok those words aren't in the bible but is the Word of God not enough for us to use?)
2 Timothy: 14-17
"But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
The Word of God is ALL we need. Paul makes it clear that the bible is sufficient enough for us to be complete, and equipped for every good work. Why does the Catholic Church insist on filling all the Gaps, where they have no foundation, only speculation. I mean look at the judicial system. Do courts allow killers to be aquitted if there is only speculation that they are innocent? NO They need Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that this person is not a killer. Shouldnt Doctrine be the same? There are somethings better left unknown, and to find out when we are in heaven. Instead we should use that time to find middle ground between Christian sects, so that we may all unite in faith and tradition.
Love you all, your brother in christ,
Arthur
_____________________________
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is!"
"There are no such things as coincidences, only divine appointments from God"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/20/2007 3:45:54 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 57
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Be my guest Chelsea. I just kinda barged into this one too hehe. Its been going on for over 2 years now, please post.
_____________________________
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is!"
"There are no such things as coincidences, only divine appointments from God"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/20/2007 4:00:51 PM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
She isn't exempt from death. She fell asleep in the Lord and was buried not far from Christ's tomb. On the way to bury her there was practically a riot as those who hated Christ tried to disrupt the funeral procession and drag her body from the bier. One was the Chief priest and his hand was paralized the instant he touched her to drag her down. He soon repented, was converted and healed. St. Thomas was a couple of days late arriving for the burial and wished to pay his last respects to the Mother of the Lord and they opened the tomb for him but when they did it was empty.
Nice story---where did it come from? Certainly not the Bible. Someone has a great imagination!
quote:
Very perplexed the Apostles went back to her house where they all beheld her in a vision where she told them Christ her Son had ressurected her and taken her to be with Him and crowned her as Queen...which is consistant with the David custom of the queen mother reigning as queen of the land. Anyway she said would be ever praying for them and the Church.
It just keeps getting better---She was resurrected? Strange thought. Where does the Bible tell us of this great resurrection?
quote:
So as you can see she did not excape death but was resurrected and glorified as will be all the faithful one day...she just got to do it first. And even in my most devout and anti-catholic Protestant days I could not begrudge her that. She is probably the most important person in human history after Christ. I suppose you could say Adam and Eve come before since they are our first parents, but where they messed up, the blessed Theotokos got it right and became the Living Ark overshadowed by God's Grace and became the mother of the Lord, God incarnate, Jesus Christ the only Begotton of the Father, Son of God and Son of Man. So through her our salvation was brought forth...which kind of trumps our original forebearers.
Gosh and all this time I thought Jesus said He was the only path to salvation!
quote:
Some might object that this story is not told in scripture. All I can say is a lot of the history of what the Apostles and early Christian's did and the grace they knew is not recorded in Scripture...which doesn't mean it didn't matter or that it was forgotten. It did matter, and bits of it were remembered...like how each of the Apostles died, and this is one of those bits...what happened when the Blessed Theotokos reposed.
Nothing in the story detracts from Christ or is in any way implausable or inconsistant with what is revealed in Scripture. It has been believed by the Church for centuries as the true is somewhat condensed account of those events. Now what these things mean is another question that many have and contiune to debate.
So to say the mother of our Lord was assumed into heaven just strikes me as a great and generous thing to do by the Lord, and truly appropriate.
This is really a tremendous story. I have problems believing anyone would think this all up by themselves. Have the Catholics been working on this for hundreds of years? Maybe this is one of the reasons the Catholic Church didn't want anyone to know what the Bible actually said unless they spoke Latin. Didn't they realize that when they finally started speaking English in the Church and Masses people would learn the truth? Or had they simply told the stories for so long the Priests themselves finally started believing it?
Anyway it makes for interesting reading - fiction though.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/20/2007 4:19:19 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 57
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JaredMeister
George, I don't think we're going to get very far with each other. I'm going to take a bit of a break.
Toolman & Sdaw, thanks for the earlier explanations.
I'm going to resort to posting some articles. Enjoy 
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
Excellent read! That pretty much says it all.
Great quote from that:
"Pius XII, in his decree in 1950, declared the Assumption teaching to be a dogma revealed by God. But the basis upon which he justifies this assertion is not that of Scripture or patristic testimony but of speculative theology. He concludes that because it seems reasonable and just that God should follow a certain course of action with respect to the person of Mary, and because he has the power, that he has in fact done so. And, therefore, we must believe that he really acted in this way. Tertullian dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who sought to bolster heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. His words stand as a much needed rebuke to the Roman Church of our day in its misguided teachings about Mary:
But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).
Tertullian says that we can know if God has done something by validating it from Scripture. Not to be able to do so invalidates any claim that a teaching has been revealed by God. This comes back again to the patristic principle of sola scriptura, a principle universally adhered to in the eaerly Church. But one which has been repudiated by the Roman Church and which has resulted in its embracing and promoting teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, which were never taught in the early Church and which have no Scriptural backing.
The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it. But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God."
_____________________________
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is!"
"There are no such things as coincidences, only divine appointments from God"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/20/2007 4:45:51 PM
|
|
|
FaithandHope
Posts: 20
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Lurker:
Jesus was not two distinct beings, the man and God. Jesus is both man AND God in one. You can't say that your mother is merely the mother of your fleshly half. She is more than that. Just as Mary is more than the mother of Jesus in the Flesh. She's the mother of Jesus, period. You can't seperate Jesus' fleshly side from His divinity. .
Hi there! Maybe I am not understanding you correctly but, I don't think it works quite the way your are saying.
Jesus took on (added) another nature: human
Jesus as one person now has two distinct natures: divine and human. His divine nature did not 'combine' or 'mix' with His human nature to make one nature. When Jesus died His divine nature did not die (God can not die). The attributes of the divine nature though are ascribed to the single person of Christ (the attibutes of both natures are ). And that's why Jesus' death has infinite value.
Jesus was able to be tempted, feel hunger etc., and go through all the emotional and physical pain that we humans do because of His human nature.
God can not be tempted. But Jesus could be; because He has two distinct natures: divine and human.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/21/2007 1:06:54 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1092
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
"This is really a tremendous story. I have problems believing anyone would think this all up by themselves. Have the Catholics been working on this for hundreds of years? Maybe this is one of the reasons the Catholic Church didn't want anyone to know what the Bible actually said unless they spoke Latin. Didn't they realize that when they finally started speaking English in the Church and Masses people would learn the truth? Or had they simply told the stories for so long the Priests themselves finally started believing it? "
The Orthodox Church believes this and we haven't been in communion with Rome in over 1000 years, the Armenians believe this, the Copts and Syrians believe this and they have not been in communion with Rome for 1500 years, the Malankara (seperated for 1600 years) believe this in addition to Rome...only Rome used Latin. This story has been known in the Church long before the 600s....actually since apostolic times. But you don' t believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/21/2007 1:38:59 PM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
"This is really a tremendous story. I have problems believing anyone would think this all up by themselves. Have the Catholics been working on this for hundreds of years? Maybe this is one of the reasons the Catholic Church didn't want anyone to know what the Bible actually said unless they spoke Latin. Didn't they realize that when they finally started speaking English in the Church and Masses people would learn the truth? Or had they simply told the stories for so long the Priests themselves finally started believing it? "
The Orthodox Church believes this and we haven't been in communion with Rome in over 1000 years, the Armenians believe this, the Copts and Syrians believe this and they have not been in communion with Rome for 1500 years, the Malankara (seperated for 1600 years) believe this in addition to Rome...only Rome used Latin. This story has been known in the Church long before the 600s....actually since apostolic times. But you don' t believe that.
Why would anyone believe the story when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for it? It is nothing more than something thought up by some person that sounds good but has no factual basis.
Why would anyone want to make up a story like this? Why would anyone believe it? For what reason would it be done? Don't you realize that to believe something like this indicates that you would believe anything that the church tells you?
I would suggest that if this story has any factual basis, there must be a beginning which I am sure the church would be able to relate??? Or some reason for the story.
It's like so many other false doctrines some churches have. They start with something they want to believe and then put it in story form and try to justify it. There is no justification for something like the assumption of Mary. Nothing whatsoever!
If the Bible doesn't teach it, how could anyone who claims to be a Christian believe it???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/21/2007 3:49:33 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1092
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why would anyone believe the story when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for it?
Because the Bible is not an encyclopedia. Not everything is in it. Even all that Jesus said and did is not in it. Its focus is fairly narrow. The way the various apostles died is not in it either...but they died just the same...some by crucifiction, some by being beaten or stabbed, others were beheaded...but there is no particular ruckus over that memory..that history preserved in the Church outside the Bible. It seems it only Mary they hate, whose memeory they take pains to vilfy and demean. Don't understand it...but it's hard to miss. If nothing could be considered factual that wasn't more or less explicit in Scripture...well we would be in a sorry state of affairs. By that reasoning I can't ever be sure I live in MS...it's not in the Bible, must not be a fact.
quote:
Why would anyone want to make up a story like this? Why would anyone believe it? For what reason would it be done? Don't you realize that to believe something like this indicates that you would believe anything that the church tells you?
Maybe they didn't make it up. Maybe its true. Maybe people believe it because they believe it is true and they trust who told them it is true. What's wrong with believing what the Church tells me...she tells me the Holy Scriptures are trustworthy...maybe its a trick and I shouldn't believe that either. Besides, Christ instituted the Church, filled it with His Spirit, gave her the apostles and the scriptures, preserved and transmitted them, through her provided uncounted multitudes as holy martyrs, defended the faith from many major heresies...I would say I have reason to believe that the Church is a gift and expression of the Father's love and of Christ's grace by the Spirit. I'll trust whom God entrusted. Besides what is so hard to believe. If you believe Enoch was caught away and Elijah, if you believe Christ raised others from the dead what is the difficulty He did the same thing for His mother. Just because the event is not explicitly recorded in the NT doesn't make it not so...and it is implicit...the Church has always understood the Woman clothed with the Sun in Revelation to be the Panagia...the Holy and Ever Blessed Theotokos.
And there is a reason for the story...the reason is that it happened and it is remembered because from it we learn that the life of prayer and intercession the Holy Mother of God undertook in her earthly life continues unbroken and in great glory in her present life. From it we learn the potency of the intercession and communon of the saints both in this life and in the next. Good reasons all.
quote:
If the Bible doesn't teach it, how could anyone who claims to be a Christian believe it???
But the Bible does teach it (not that it has to)...just not explicitly...read the Revelation of St. John...she is the Woman clothed with the sun caught away to heaven. And as the story goes, she was raised in glory and caught away bodily to heaven...it works together very nicely like true things often do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/21/2007 4:29:31 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5043
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
Maybe they didn't make it up. Maybe its true. Maybe people believe it because they believe it is true and they trust who told them it is true. What's wrong with believing what the Church tells me...she tells me the Holy Scriptures are trustworthy...maybe its a trick and I shouldn't believe that either. Besides, Christ instituted the Church, filled it with His Spirit, gave her the apostles and the scriptures, preserved and transmitted them, through her provided uncounted multitudes as holy martyrs, defended the faith from many major heresies...I would say I have reason to believe that the Church is a gift and expression of the Father's love and of Christ's grace by the Spirit. I'll trust whom God entrusted. Besides what is so hard to believe. If you believe Enoch was caught away and Elijah, if you believe Christ raised others from the dead what is the difficulty He did the same thing for His mother. Just because the event is not explicitly recorded in the NT doesn't make it not so...and it is implicit...the Church has always understood the Woman clothed with the Sun in Revelation to be the Panagia...the Holy and Ever Blessed Theotokos.
And there is a reason for the story...the reason is that it happened and it is remembered because from it we learn that the life of prayer and intercession the Holy Mother of God undertook in her earthly life continues unbroken and in great glory in her present life. From it we learn the potency of the intercession and communon of the saints both in this life and in the next. Good reasons all.
quote:
If the Bible doesn't teach it, how could anyone who claims to be a Christian believe it???
But the Bible does teach it (not that it has to)...just not explicitly...read the Revelation of St. John...she is the Woman clothed with the sun caught away to heaven. And as the story goes, she was raised in glory and caught away bodily to heaven...it works together very nicely like true things often do.
Wow, talk about dancing on the head of a pin; I do believe you have outdone yourself on this post UWS.
What the Scripture does say is when someone was trying to elevate Mary;
(Luk 11:27) And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
Jesus replied;
(Luk 11:28) But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Appears that our Lord missed a real opportunity to speak to the "Mother of God", "Immaculate Conseption", or "The Assumption".
But He seems to dismiss her importance in liew of Believers.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/21/2007 7:00:38 PM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
It is very hard to understand why some churches want to elevate Mary. It is obvious Christ did not consider her to be extra-special.
I believe she was blessed to be the vessel that bore our Saviour and certainly she should be honored for that but not to the extent of raising her to the level of Christ; calling her the prayer tower, the intercessor or setting her up as an idol. Certainly Christ is the intercessor and the mediator between God and man and the idea of Mary being equal or taking away those things from Christ is simply unbelievable. I believe she is holy like the rest of God's chosen vessels but she is certainly not to be adored, prayed to, etc. as some churches do.
We should remember our authority? Is it God, where we receive and obey God's Word or is it man in the form of priests or bishops? Shouldn't we receive and obey God's Word as the ultimate authority, or should we believe man and receive and obey our teachers even when they have another authority than that of the Bible? The church teachers I am referring to here will never reach an agreement based on scripture unless their church leaders (man) says they can. Obey man and not God? Anathema!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/21/2007 11:41:03 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1092
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
"Appears that our Lord missed a real opportunity to speak to the "Mother of God", "Immaculate Conseption", or "The Assumption".
But He seems to dismiss her importance in liew of Believers. "
Actually He didn't and that is apparent with this and similar sayings on closer read.
Granted He did not draw attention to her during His earthly life and neither did the Apostles, though there is enough said to show that she was an important figure in the early Christian community. There is good reason for this lack of notority though which we can see in our own times. Look at how the families of celebrities and powerful politicians are liable to be pestered to death or hounded. Given what Jesus knew they were going to do to Him and after Him the Church why would He or the Apostles want to expose her to the same dangers by making a public figure of her. They would no more think of parading her around than the priests of the OT would think about using the Ark as some kind of promotional prop on a whim. It was holy, bearing the tablets of the Law and other tokens of God's visitation, and it was kept in a holy place out of the reach of the restless mob. So was the Mother of God kept, protected in the heart of the Church from press and mire of public display. That danger however passed upon her repose.
But that said, Christ never insulted or distained her in public. His words were never in rebuke and were often covert acknowledgement of her great faith and humility.
1. He frequently called her "Woman". This was a term of respect not insult and it also underscored who she was in prophecy...The Woman whose seed would crush the serpent's head, the second Eve...or was it some other than Christ Jesus the Son of God and Son of Mary who did just that?
2. He did what she asked at the wedding at Cana.
3. He made a number of cryptic statements that could be read as dismissive on the surface but can only be understood as showing her great if secret honor if read more deeply. Consider the passage quoted in the passage above "Yea, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it" So did Mary hear the word of God? Did she believe it? Did she keep it? Apparently she heard and kept it so well God became incarnate within her...chose her out of all women in history to be His mother. When Christ foretold of His coming death, St. Peter chided him for saying and was rebuked by Christ who said He was not mindful of the things of God. Yet His own mother at the foot of the Cross kept silent though a sword pierced her own heart. Her silence affirmed the will of God at Christ's death just as much as her "be it unto me..." affirmed it at Christ's conception. So if we ask who of all the holy men and women we know of in Scripture most fully fulfilled that statment of Christ's, there is only one answer...Mary, the mother of God, the blessed Theotokos.
4. Consider when speaking of St. John the Forerunner Christ said that the least in the Kingdom was greater than John. Some in their hubris might be tempted to think of themselves as somehow greater than John in the kingdom based on a reading of this text that would exclude the prophet John since he lived under the law...but it is a nonsensical reading. What does Christ say the Kingdom is? Is it not Righteous Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost? What does Christ say of the least? Are not the last to be first? What did Christ say of those who would be great? Did He not gird Himself with a towel and wash the Apostle's feet saying those who would be great among them must be the servant of all? So who did God acknowledge as His servant if not "the handmaiden of the Lord"? Who was overshadowed by the Spirit of God if not the handmaiden of the Lord? Who in Church did more to labor secretly in prayer out of the public eye than our Lady, the blessed Theotokos. Who humbled herself to virtual nonentitity when she could have been great in the eyes of men as any of the mother's of kings of old or the prophetesses...if not the Mother of God? So who was least in the kingdom (righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit) and thus the greatest if not the Blessed and all holy Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary?
All those times it seemed as if He might be pushing her away by saying how blessed someone was in such and such a spiritual state in realtity for those who had ears to hear and eyes to see He was telling us all the kind of woman His mother was, the mother He gave to us all from the Cross, the mother the Church has treasured and honored ever since...at first with decorum in secret to protect her and her memory...and only later openly.
As for the Immaculate Conception, that is a belief particular to Rome, but regardless the Immaculate Conception as a belief has nothing to do with the belief by all the ancient communions in her raising up and glorification by Christ at the time of her falling asleep in the Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/22/2007 4:46:58 PM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
But that said, Christ never insulted or distained her in public. His words were never in rebuke and were often covert acknowledgement of her great faith and humility.
It would appear that Jesus rebuked her when she told him about the wine. In fact He always referred to her as "woman" and I am not familiar with any scriptures that show Him calling her Mother. You seem to think that shows respect. I believe it was done to rebuke her for some reason.
John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
You also seem to believe that Mary heard the word of God and kept it. It is very possible that she did but are you basing your belief of this on something that has been passed down by your church and has no basis in the Bible? Don't you think that if there had been any special relationship with God and Mary, other than to be a chosen vessel, it would appear in the Bible somewhere?
Many people have problems with Moroni and Joseph Smith finding plates written by God but very few seem to understand that many RCC doctrines are much farther out of sync with the Bible. It seems someone in power in the church long ago decided to put his mark on the church and made up some stories, then declared them "tradition" of the church that should be accepted.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul don't mention anything about an assumption of Mary and they were all writing well after Christ's resurrection. Surely they would have known of any such happening as this and written about it. If God had thought enough of Mary to raise her from the dead and take her to heaven(where He has taken no one else but Jesus) then it would have been a big deal in the Gospels.
To believe anything else is putting too much faith in man and very little faith in God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/22/2007 5:15:21 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 754
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
As mentioned by UWS, the usage of the term "Woman" by Our Lord was a deliberate hearkening to the prophecy made in the garden of Eden to the serpent. How the offspring of the Woman would strike at the serpent's head.
_____________________________
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? - 2/24/2007 6:03:47 PM
|
|
|
GraceBro
Posts: 360
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: online
|
According to The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, regarding the Assumption of Mary, it states:
"Scripture holds no clear evidence for this belief...Belief in Mary's Assumption first appeared in the sixth century...Then in various Eastern churches and by the mid-seventh century in Rome Mary's main feast day became a celebration of her bodily assumption into heaven. Belief in this doctrine developed mainly through preaching and devotional literature. (pg. 104)"
Therefore, the Catholic Church itself admits to the fact that this celebration of Mary is not biblical and didn't become part of their faith until hundreds of years after Mary lived. Thus, it is safe to say that the claim is not true, but rather a manmade doctrine. The Mary of the Bible is far different from the Mary portrayed by the Catholic Church.
"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her..."And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.." Luke 1:38, 46-47
The "Mother of God" would not admit to needing a Savior and being a servant of the Lord. Mary died just like everyone else has and will. She died for the same reason all other humans die. Like us, she was subject to the penalty of sin, which is death. This is precisely why she needed a Savior, like us.
Grace and Peace
_____________________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GraceRest/
www.livinggodministries.net
http://360.yahoo.com/idog96
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/25/2007 12:02:14 PM
|
|
|
agomemnon
Posts: 98
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GraceBro
According to The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, regarding the Assumption of Mary, it states:
"Scripture holds no clear evidence for this belief...Belief in Mary's Assumption first appeared in the sixth century...Then in various Eastern churches and by the mid-seventh century in Rome Mary's main feast day became a celebration of her bodily assumption into heaven. Belief in this doctrine developed mainly through preaching and devotional literature. (pg. 104)"
Therefore, the Catholic Church itself admits to the fact that this celebration of Mary is not biblical and didn't become part of their faith until hundreds of years after Mary lived. Thus, it is safe to say that the claim is not true, but rather a manmade doctrine. The Mary of the Bible is far different from the Mary portrayed by the Catholic Church.
"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her..."And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.." Luke 1:38, 46-47
The "Mother of God" would not admit to needing a Savior and being a servant of the Lord. Mary died just like everyone else has and will. She died for the same reason all other humans die. Like us, she was subject to the penalty of sin, which is death. This is precisely why she needed a Savior, like us.
Grace and Peace
First the historicity of Harper Collins Encyclopedia can be questioned but so can the necessity or your citing it.
This is a doctrine from Holy Tridition. This Holy Tradition comes from the same source as that which determines what the Bible is and contains. In the 4th Century all 73 books of the Bible were declared and codified by the Church. It was mentioned in the Council of Nicea. I wonder if you hold to the canon of the Bible as it had been known.
On the second part of your statement your making logical errors. Mary IS the Mother of God because Jesus Is God. Her title as Theotokos (God-bearer) more ancient and is of course True (historically, Traditionally, biblically).
Mary needed a savior because she is a creature of God like us. Though saved from the stain of original sin by God she of course lived in the world like us and therefore was still subject to its effects. The Assumption of Mary is not really all that different from the assumption of Elija and the assumption of Moses. It happened in pre-christ so why wouldn't it also occur post-christ.
The only recent man-made doctrines that have arisen in churches is that which goes against the bible - --- contraception. All protestant, catholic, orthodox (and even jew) was against contraception as against God's plan and against the bible. When we can question this 20th century novelty among those that call themselves chrisitan or jew then we will be able to fully explore such beliefs as the Assumption of Mary.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/25/2007 6:48:05 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1092
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Saying the church did not believe in her catching away before the sixth century because thats is when public record becomes noticiable which has remained to our time is like saying the church didn't believe in the Holy Trinity until the council of Nicea. The "article" carries with it two huge assumptions...one that all things that pertain to Christian belief and practive is found in Scripture...at least explicitly, and second that everything belived by the Church made it into its public record as quickly as people were available to write about them....something not true...for a number of things the Church kept stictly between her baptized members and were not commited to writing until over a generation past the repose of St. Constantine...or more. Silly ivory tower scholars.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/25/2007 10:05:26 PM
|
|
|
GraceBro
Posts: 360
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: online
|
I didn't expect to change anybody's beliefs. I only wanted to show that the Assumption of Mary is not biblical...
Grace and Peace
_____________________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GraceRest/
www.livinggodministries.net
http://360.yahoo.com/idog96
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/26/2007 12:29:43 PM
|
|
|
Lew
Posts: 19
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
agomemnon
The Assumption of Mary is not really all that different from the assumption of Elija and the assumption of Moses
It is different because the assumption is clearly written in the bible about these prophets and how they were taken up. Im curious where the scripture clearly indicates the notion that Mary was taken up?
quote:
Mary IS the Mother of God because Jesus Is God.
Mary is a daughter of god, not a mother. She gave birth to Christs flesh (and god makes flesh anyway so either way you cant argue your point)
The bible does CLEARLY state however is that we have all missed the mark and in need of Gods Saviour for our personal salvation. It was gods grace that honoured her and her womanhood not her unique purity. The same grace that forgives us our sins.
< Message edited by Lew -- 2/26/2007 1:02:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/26/2007 2:01:11 PM
|
|
|
Soxfan
Posts: 1504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Connecticut
Status: offline
|
It blows my mind that these Mary threads have continued for so long.
1. Mary was a sinner, like all of us. There is no Scripture that says otherwise.
Last I checked, the Bible states that "ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God". If someone can show me a translation that says "ALL (except Mary) have sinned...."
If I'm not mistaken, even she admitted that she needed a Savior. Why would sh, if she were "sinless"?
2. Mary bore other children, kinda hard to be a virgin then.
3. Mary, because she was a sinner like the rest of us, died a normal physical death like the rest of us.
These threads have actually been a encouraging to me. To see Mary-ites trying to defend these unbiblical doctrines further reinforces my belief that they are NOT true.
_____________________________
"This would be the first step in apostasy; men first forget the true, and then adore the false.".......C.H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/26/2007 7:53:03 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1092
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
But this thread is not about whether or not she was a sinner or understood herself to have sinned, nor is it about whether or not she ever had other children, but rather is about whether or not at the end of her life Christ raised and glorified her and took her to heaven.
The ancient communions beleive she was, most protestants believe she didn't.
The basic objection seems to be that it is "unbibical" as if that were automatically "antibiblical". It also assumes that nothing said about the event....as if it must be recorded in Scripture to be true...that which it does say that does support the belief in the event in the only book that it could have been in given the time of its composition is dismissed as a completlely allegorical event not tied to a "conventional" person...that is to say the woman clothed with the sun in Revleation.
Revelation is a book of the NT. The woman in question gives birth to a Child who is understood almost universally to be Christ...so the woman is very likely to be Mary whatever other symbological weight her image might bear...and this woman was caught away to heaven. But the naysayers refuse to even entertain the possibility that this figure might Mary and persist to call the belief unbiblical.
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
****15****20****25****30****35****40 
