|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/5/2007 10:52:17 AM
|
|
|
BlackCapnHarlock
Posts: 361
Joined: 8/20/2005
Status: offline
|
Please be merciful to me as I respond:
I believe the worship of Mary is based in the pagan tradtions that influenced the Catholic church and that are with us to this day. Mary is no different than the Diania worshippers, or Isis Cult or other women led pagan traditions that predate Catholocism.
Mary was a sinner. She was chosen by GOD to bear JESUS the CHRIST. That's it folks. After the birth of CHRIST. Her body healed up, she became carnally intimate with her husband Joseph, and they had more kids. She doubted the CHRIST later on. She later believed in the RISEN Christ.
That's it folks. I am tired of all these "queen of heaven" and "queen of the universe" worshippers. This is pagan, this is error, this is blasphemous and it's demonic.
I think JESUS THE CHRIST said it best:
Luke 11:27-28
Lu 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.
Lu 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
As for her intimacy, Matthew 1:24-25
Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
_____________________________
Ezekiel 16:6 Eze 16:6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/5/2007 12:28:35 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7663
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
I've removed a bunch of posts which were completely off topic.
We have an entire thread devoted to the catholic church and her alleged appearance in prophecy.
Here is the link for that:
Click Here
The Assumption of Mary thread is for the purpose of discussing the ... [drum roll] assumption of Mary.
You may also discuss the alleged appiritions of Mary in this thread.
You may NOT discuss prophecy in this thread. If you do then you can expect to see your post disappear and please do not be surprised if you learn you've been banned as well.
Keep it on topic!
Thank you for your attention. Directly below this sentence is a few lines in big bold red letters. I've made them that way so that they will be read and followed. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/5/2007 1:25:16 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7663
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MARY IN REVELATION
Posts which ignore this warning will be removed and the poster will be banned.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Posts which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/5/2007 3:40:22 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 56
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BlackCapnHarlock
Please be merciful to me as I respond:
I believe the worship of Mary is based in the pagan tradtions that influenced the Catholic church and that are with us to this day. Mary is no different than the Diania worshippers, or Isis Cult or other women led pagan traditions that predate Catholocism.
Mary was a sinner. She was chosen by GOD to bear JESUS the CHRIST. That's it folks. After the birth of CHRIST. Her body healed up, she became carnally intimate with her husband Joseph, and they had more kids. She doubted the CHRIST later on. She later believed in the RISEN Christ.
That's it folks. I am tired of all these "queen of heaven" and "queen of the universe" worshippers. This is pagan, this is error, this is blasphemous and it's demonic.
I think JESUS THE CHRIST said it best:
Luke 11:27-28
Lu 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.
Lu 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
As for her intimacy, Matthew 1:24-25
Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
quote:
he had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Excellent Post! Couldnt get more clearer than that can it? From the words of Christ himself! Cmon people why deny what is so obvious? Jesus himself never raised Mary on a pedestal, he CLEARLY downgrades her status PUBLICALLY when others are trying to raise her status up. Why else would Jesus say such a thing?
Any BTW, why does no one ever have answers to my questions?  Please look back to page 5 of this thread, i gave some good points about the alleged "Lady of Fatima". I would really like a Catholic side to that argument. Thanks 
_____________________________
"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? - 3/6/2007 2:27:21 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:
ORIGINAL: CalRed
In regards to the assumption of Mary, my interpretation of the scriptures is adequate and proper. According to whom? A great number disagree with you. Where do you get the authority that your interpretation is adequate?
Wow, sorry I let this one slip...
The authority you ask about in regards to this particular matter comes from the ability to read words that are supernaturally and Providentially preserved by God, and have been printed on paper. The fact that many (a great number) happen to be mistaken doesn't change the fact that those many are still mistaken!
What we are running into here has been expressed pretty clearly in another thread on this site:
http://forums.crosswalk.com/3_Types_of_Christians/m_2193800/tm.htm
In this thread, the OP asks what is the 'Final Authority' in this life; Is it the Church, the heart, or the Word of God? The answers are overwhelmingly that it is the word of God. What you will notice, though, is that the posters who are of the catholic persuasion consider the church to be that final authority, even though that stance goes directly against Scripture.
In this light, if a person believes that the dictates of fallible men can overturn what is written in God's word, they will have no qualms about believing that scripture means whatever the church says it means. If this allows for the invention of things like the assumption of Mary, it's OK because these men's words mean more than God's words.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/6/2007 8:02:18 PM
|
|
|
agomemnon
Posts: 59
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:
ORIGINAL: CalRed
In regards to the assumption of Mary, my interpretation of the scriptures is adequate and proper. According to whom? A great number disagree with you. Where do you get the authority that your interpretation is adequate?
Wow, sorry I let this one slip...
The authority you ask about in regards to this particular matter comes from the ability to read words that are supernaturally and Providentially preserved by God, and have been printed on paper. The fact that many (a great number) happen to be mistaken doesn't change the fact that those many are still mistaken!
What we are running into here has been expressed pretty clearly in another thread on this site:
http://forums.crosswalk.com/3_Types_of_Christians/m_2193800/tm.htm
In this thread, the OP asks what is the 'Final Authority' in this life; Is it the Church, the heart, or the Word of God? The answers are overwhelmingly that it is the word of God. What you will notice, though, is that the posters who are of the catholic persuasion consider the church to be that final authority, even though that stance goes directly against Scripture.
In this light, if a person believes that the dictates of fallible men can overturn what is written in God's word, they will have no qualms about believing that scripture means whatever the church says it means. If this allows for the invention of things like the assumption of Mary, it's OK because these men's words mean more than God's words.
Since Scripture clearly says the Church is the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth are we going against scripture of following it if we listen to the teaching of the Church?
How do we know what is scripture and what isn't? Do we check with the publisher or the authority (the Church) that discerned the Canon over a thousand years ago?
The only thing that goes against scripture is if we say 'only scripture' and not recognize that Scripture itself tells us to Hold Fast to the teaching and Traditions of the apostles.
Is teh Chuch the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth as the Bible claims?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/7/2007 12:04:35 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: agomemnon
Since Scripture clearly says the Church is the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth are we going against scripture of following it if we listen to the teaching of the Church?
It does say this, it's just that you have no clue what the true church is. You think it's a collection of people all dressed up in their silly robes, deciding which dead people to pray to and what science fiction/fantasy they can make up to increase the offerings.
quote:
How do we know what is scripture and what isn't? Do we check with the publisher or the authority (the Church) that discerned the Canon over a thousand years ago?
We check with the original author, silly!
You have the unmitigated gall to question whether or not God can preserve His Word?!? Who do you think you are?!? He wants his word spread to all the peoples of the world. Which 'version' has He blessed for five hundred years? You tried to stop it, but God Himself saw to it that the corruption would be overcome.
quote:
The only thing that goes against scripture is if we say 'only scripture' and not recognize that Scripture itself tells us to Hold Fast to the teaching and Traditions of the apostles. You are absolutely correct here! The only part of it you have blown is referenced to in my earlier post: The church you hold so dear deviated from the true traditions and teachings of the apostles over 1,500 years ago... The apostles had everyone share God's resources with each other as any had need. Your church refuses to do this. I guess it doesn't matter what Jesus taught, so long as the traditions made up by men get followed... What further proof could you possibly hope to get beyond the truth that's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!?? Open your eyes, and you will be slapped by the reality so hard that it'll take weeks for you to get over how gullible you have been.
quote:
Is the Chuch the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth as the Bible claims? Again... Yeah, it is. But the institution of false idol worship (belief in the assumption of Mary, etc.) doesn't change the fact that the true church has absolutely nothing to do with what you call the 'church'.
I would suggest you re-read my earlier post. Say a prayer before you do this, and ask for Him to reveal the truth of my asessment to you. Unless you have been wrapped into these fantasies for too long, you will have it revealed to you. Was Mary caught up into heaven? No... There's no biblical proof, nor is there any hint there that it might even be so. It is fantasy... Why it was instituted, I do not know, but at some point, somebody thought it would help to further some humanly engineered agenda.
My heart has even been changed through these posts. Oh, God, Please open their hearts and eyes to your truth. I know you don't want to lose even one! Let them see... So be it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/7/2007 2:45:10 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
"You have the unmitigated gall to question whether or not God can preserve His Word?!? "
But you are questioning whether God can preserve His visible historical Church to whom and through whom you have your God preserved Bible? Rather than acknowledge that you will redefine the Church as some amorphos invisible entity that is fundamentally empty of theological meaning and presence...
The Church teaches that Christ took His mother to heaven bodily...all the ancient communions believe it. It's nothing new and it existed way before 500. The Scriptures say to keep the Tradition. This is part of that Tradition...and if is indeed the Tradition (of the Apostles, not of men) then we need ask no further. Individuals don't get to say what is or isn't the Tradition to suit their private theology...the Church does. And that is essentially the end of the matter.
When she Repose, Christ raised and glorified her and she has continued praying for us all ever since.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/7/2007 9:58:36 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
But you are questioning whether God can preserve His visible historical Church to whom and through whom you have your God preserved Bible? Rather than acknowledge that you will redefine the Church as some amorphos invisible entity that is fundamentally empty of theological meaning and presence... He HAS preserved His true church, though it is not what you seem to think it is. Anyone who has read the words of Christ has only to look at what your church does to see that it isn't anything like what He taught: Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Ummmm.. Hey! We see your fruits! It doesn't get more clear than God's word!
quote:
The Church teaches that Christ took His mother to heaven bodily...all the ancient communions believe it. It's nothing new and it existed way before 500. God's Word does NOT teach this. Men do. (Whether or not they wear funny hats, they're still men) As I said before, the fact that it is many who beleive a thing doesn't change the fact that that 'many' are still wrong... As far as timeframe goes, Paul made us aware that even during his lifetime, there were those who were perverting the truth. He didn't say who, but the fruit shows us today who it was. That is pretty much irrefutable. If a thing (church, person, tradition, and/or doctrine) represents itself to the world as being Christlike, but doesn't produce Christlike fruit, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing...
quote:
The Scriptures say to keep the Tradition. This is part of that Tradition...and if is indeed the Tradition (of the Apostles, not of men) then we need ask no further. But if the traditions do not walk in accordance with the written teachings of those apostles, then they aren't to be followed by those who truly follow Christ. The apostles showed forth fruit as evidenced in the Acts of who? as I referenced earlier. That is where we find the traditions of the apostles to be preserved by God so that we can differentiate truth from untruth. I don't believe that I have read in ANY version about the assumption of Mary in there...
quote:
Individuals don't get to say what is or isn't the Tradition to suit their private theology...the Church does. And that is essentially the end of the matter. This, I see, is the heart of your error... Individuals do not get to say what is or is not the tradition of the apostles, especially when it is used to suit their private theology: This includes even a large group of individuals. The final authority is His Word, which He has Providentially preserved and distributed to His people, so that we might be able to recognize wolves when we are confronted by them.
quote:
When she Repose, Christ raised and glorified her and she has continued praying for us all ever since. I have studied God's word exhaustively and repeatedly, yet I find this nowhere in it. Could you kindly direct me to where I may find it? The only limitation on this is that it be in the scriptures that have been preserved and passed on to His people. This means it needs to be in the scriptures that were approved by the original canon. Do you know why they were moved to act upon this need to preserve the writings? It was because they had already seen how there were those who were actively attempting to modify scripture to advance humanly engineered agena...
(BTW. A manuscript that was generated by a governmental body doesn't qualify.)
Do you see how the house of cards tumbles to the ground when shown in the light of the Word? Christ told us, point blank, that we would know them by their fruit, so when we look at the fruit, and see bad fruit, we are assured of the truth. Our mission is to reach those who have been deceived, and show them the truth. If, by these posts, even one is saved from the lies of Satan, it is all worth it. Don't be ashamed... many great men have fallen to deception, and especially when the author of that deception is the prince of lies... Our only defense is to put on the whole armor of God.
Ephesians 6:10-20
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for (not TO) all saints; 19And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
I pray that I speak boldly, and I can do so, because it isn't my words I speak... The words are those of God!
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 3/7/2007 10:11:25 AM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/7/2007 3:48:55 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 56
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
When she Repose, Christ raised and glorified her and she has continued praying for us all ever since.
Never have i seen such "Assumptions" without a biblical foundation. Did anyone ready my previous posts? Since when do we make Doctrine out of something that has REASONABLE DOUBT!?
Dont you think if Mary would of Assumed into heaven, someone would of wrote about it? An eyewitness? Why does Jesus himself demean her importance publically, and call her as equal as any other human on this earth. I pray for those who keep insisting on taking the traditions of man over what the word of God clearly states.
I see repetedly that Catholics keep using the fact that "if the early church taught it, it has to be right".
What if the early church misinterpreted some things? Is that not possible? Look at slavery, look at the witch trials, look at the Spanish Inquisition! There are a lot of mistakes that the church has made over the years.
Still no response to my thoughts of the Lady of Fatima... 
_____________________________
"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? - 3/7/2007 6:59:17 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1342
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Marquez, scripture has been quoted to prove the assumption.
quote:
What if the early church misinterpreted some things? If this is true, why would you think your interpretation would be any better?
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/8/2007 1:24:31 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Dear Papa San,
Let me try to address your concerns without any desire to change your mind.
quote:
“He HAS preserved His true church
Agreed.
quote:
Anyone who has read the words of Christ has only to look at what your church does to see that it isn't anything like what He taught
What do you know of my Church, what it teaches or why, or its history? When I look at the Protestant communions I do not see anything like what He taught. That is a big part of why I left Protestantism after being a very active, engaged, and informed Protestant for ¾ of my life.
quote:
Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Again a reason I left Protestantism, especially its current “charismatic” expressions.
quote:
Ummmm.. Hey! We see your fruits!”
This is hard to comment upon because I don’t know which particular cherries you are picking.
quote:
God's Word does NOT teach this [the assumption].
“We say it does, you just don’t agree with our reading of the text”. Not that it matters if there was no reference to the event. There is no mention of just how any of the apostles were martyred, but that memory is recorded in the history of the Church just as this is. It doesn’t have to be in Scripture to be true.
quote:
Men do. (Whether or not they wear funny hats, they're still men)”
John the Baptist and the Apostles were just men too with or without hats.
quote:
As I said before, the fact that it is many who believe a thing doesn't change the fact that that 'many' are still wrong...
In principle I agree that truth is not subject to majority vote. That does not preclude the many from being right as well. But according to Scripture there are some different things to take into account with the Church. It is not a merely human institution or organization. It has divine origin which includes mankind among its members. It’s principle is “Deep calls to deep” That is that which is true has resonance with that which is true. The Church as the temple of the Spirit receives truth and recognizes it because of who she is and Who indwells her. Lies, errors, deceptions, heresies can only be tolerated briefly to allow a time for repentance otherwise it is vomited out. We see the pattern in Acts when the decree of the council was published in the Church at Antioch…its peace and joy were restored. So it is with the teaching of the Spirit. It rejoices the heart of the Church…and error, even fair seeming error does not allow peace to return until it is expelled…either by those adhering to it leaving or their being driven out. The Church did not long endure the error of the judaizers or the Manicheans, or the Docetists, or the Donatists, or the Monatanits, or the Arians…in each case they left or were asked to leave if they would not repent. Protestantism is a multifracious schism of a schism.
quote:
As far as timeframe goes, Paul made us aware that even during his lifetime, there were those who were perverting the truth.
Yes and they were expelled ultimately.
quote:
If a thing (church, person, tradition, and/or doctrine) represents itself to the world as being Christlike, but doesn't produce Christlike fruit, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing...
Agreed, which is precisely why I became Orthodox by the grace and mercy of God…I found a Christian experience and expression that I found nowhere else. What I saw in the lives of the saint blew all I formerly knew or thought I knew completely out of the water. I could never even hope to become the kind of Christians they were following a Protestant path…I might has well try to get to L.A. by traveling South out of Chicago.
quote:
But if the traditions do not walk in accordance with the written teachings of those apostles, then they aren't to be followed by those who truly follow Christ.
This is the big question…who says a given aspect of the Tradition is not in accordance with the written teaching of the apostles. It also begs the question since we are commanded to keep both the written and the unwritten Tradition. Each informs the other and neither is whole or comprehensible without the other. There is only the Tradition which has written and unwritten aspects…so just because you find the Church believing or practicing something you can’t find explicitly written means nothing. Not everything is written down…or at least it wasn’t way back then. Just because an individual doesn’t see a particular thing in scripture or understand the meaning and rightness of a practice or belief held by the Church is insufficient reason to abandon those things. That is just exalting man’s private intellect above the wisdom of the Spirit that He has invested in the Church corporately.
quote:
The apostles showed forth fruit as evidenced in the Acts of who? as I referenced earlier. That is where we find the traditions of the apostles to be preserved by God so that we can differentiate truth from untruth.
Where does it say everything is in there? No where.
quote:
I don't believe that I have read in ANY version about the assumption of Mary in there...
Yeah…that would have been sort of hard at the time of the writing of Acts since she was still active in her earthly life…and she was still alive during the time most of the rest of the NT was written.
quote:
This, I see, is the heart of your error... Individuals do not get to say what is or is not the tradition of the apostles, especially when it is used to suit their private theology: This includes even a large group of individuals.
The Church is not a large group of individuals and what it believes is not decided by majority vote or by imposition of a managing hierarchy. It believes what the Spirit teaches. If her hierarchs err and depart from the faith then they are driven out if they don’t repent, and any individual or group of individuals who try to foist some error from the ground up will quickly find themselves on the receiving end of the episcopacy’s God given authority to rule and protect the Church. The Church is a Divinely ordered, indwelt, and protected corporate organism. She is the Body and Bride of Christ…nothing less.
quote:
The final authority is His Word, which He has Providentially preserved and distributed to His people, so that we might be able to recognize wolves when we are confronted by them.
This is certainly what protestants believe as a whole. The Church however teaches that the Tradition is the final authority of which Scripture is the core part of which truth the Scriptures affirm…Keep the Tradition.
quote:
I have studied God's word exhaustively and repeatedly, yet I find this nowhere in it. Could you kindly direct me to where I may find it? The only limitation on this is that it be in the scriptures that have been preserved and passed on to His people.
You have already been pointed to Revelation but you won’t accept that reference…again not that there has to be any Scripture reference for it to be true.
quote:
This means it needs to be in the scriptures that were approved by the original canon.
You mean of course the canon as passed to and through the Church who does believe in the catching away of the Mother of God.
quote:
”Do you see how the house of cards tumbles to the ground when shown in the light of the Word?”
My house is still standing…how’s that foundation of sand working out for you?
< Message edited by unworthyseraphim -- 3/8/2007 1:37:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/8/2007 4:20:41 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 56
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Once again, when do we make docrine out of something that has REASONABLE DOUBT????
You can say there is scripture to back up the Assumption, but there really isnt, only ASSUMPTIONS. No wonder they call it the "Assumption" of Mary, makes perfect sense! lol
"not that there has to be any Scripture reference for it to be true." Well why not make the book of mormon doctrine? Why not make the storys of what Jesus did doctrine:
"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
What can make any "assumption" that someone makes about the "other things" Jesus did, doctrine?
Where do we draw the line?
_____________________________
"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? - 3/8/2007 4:22:48 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
Dear Papa San,
Let me try to address your concerns without any desire to change your mind.
quote:
“He HAS preserved His true church
Agreed. Wonderful! Now, join it! ( BTW, I will try to convince you, as this is what Christ teaches me to do...quote:
quote:
Anyone who has read the words of Christ has only to look at what your church does to see that it isn't anything like what He taught
What do you know of my Church, what it teaches or why, or its history? When I look at the Protestant communions I do not see anything like what He taught. That is a big part of why I left Protestantism after being a very active, engaged, and informed Protestant for ¾ of my life. I'm sorry your teachers were so inadequately prepared for their job. This is what happens when humans get their sticky little fingers into the mix. The same is the case with the Catholic traditions like the assumption of Mary. Interestingly, the departure from scripture seems to broaden over time. 2,000 years lends to a very great departure, as evidenced clearly by the way people (including members of the church) are treated. This is why we must rest our faith on God's word. If a person is gullible enough to think that something can be proper in regards to God when it is invented by men, they deserve their lot. quote:
quote:
Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Again a reason I left Protestantism, especially its current “charismatic” expressions. Did ya miss the part about what happens when people lean on interpretations of things that weren't addressed to them? This is why we were admonished to rightly divide the Word of God.quote:
quote:
Ummmm.. Hey! We see your fruits!”
This is hard to comment upon because I don’t know which particular cherries you are picking. Naw, I'm lookin in yer basket... I don't know what you believe is in there, but cherries, it aint!! quote:
quote:
God's Word does NOT teach this.
“We say it does, you just don’t agree with our reading of the text”. Not that it matters if there was no reference to the event. There is no mention of just how any of the apostles were martyred, but that memory is recorded in the history of the Church just as this is. It doesn’t have to be in Scripture to be true. Right... Right... but when it contradicts(This, I am now convinced, is the one word that continually trips you up...) God's written (and thereby provable) Word, it isn't true. (Basket check! Hold it up to the light of Scripture!)
quote:
quote:
As I said before, the fact that it is many who believe a thing doesn't change the fact that that 'many' are still wrong...
In principle I agree that truth is not subject to majority vote. Right...Right... Christ made sure to tell us we need to do a basket check to determine the truth...quote:
quote:
As far as timeframe goes, Paul made us aware that even during his lifetime, there were those who were perverting the truth.
Yes and they were expelled ultimately. Right... right... and they promptly put themselves in charge of their version of Christ's kingdom on earth, and made it suit themselves... and has since become all that the Traditions say that it is! (Whether it contradicts God's written (and thusly, provable) Word, or not)quote:
quote:
If a thing (church, person, tradition, and/or doctrine) represents itself to the world as being Christlike, but doesn't produce Christlike fruit, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing...
Agreed, which is precisely why I became Orthodox by the grace and mercy of God…I found a Christian experience and expression that I found nowhere else. What I saw in the lives of the saint blew all I formerly knew or thought I knew completely out of the water. I could never even hope to become the kind of Christians they were following a Protestant path…I might has well try to get to L.A. by traveling South out of Chicago. Right, I mentioned the fact that your teachers obviously weren't up to the task. There are plenty of empty religious people in all faiths... I'm sorry you had to experience this. You ought to come to my church... what you'll see there is the real Christ, (and a BIG ole basket 'o fresh fruits!) Oh yeah... and a few whitwashed sephulcres... They are almost everywhere, even where Christ is taught soundly, as your experiences have sadly proven.
quote:
quote:
But if the traditions do not walk in accordance with the written teachings of those apostles, then they aren't to be followed by those who truly follow Christ.
This is the big question…who says a given aspect of the Tradition is not in accordance with the written teaching of the apostles. It also begs the question since we are commanded to keep both the written and the unwritten Tradition. Each informs the other and neither is whole or comprehensible without the other. There is only the Tradition which has written and unwritten aspects…so just because you find the Church believing or practicing something you ca.. blah, blah, blah...(sic) YOU MISSED what I wrote: The 'Traditions' that are being touted as the unwritten ones (and therefore truly un-provable). ARE IN CONTRADICTION (that pesky word again) to the WRITTEN ONES that ARE provable... If that doesn't tell you something... Wow...  quote:
quote:
The apostles showed forth fruit as evidenced in the Acts of who? as I referenced earlier. That is where we find the traditions of the apostles to be preserved by God so that we can differentiate truth from untruth.
Where does it say everything is in there? No where. You are right! (Woo Hoo!) It doesn't say everything is in there! What it does say in there, is that if it contradicts (again), it is not God's will.quote:
quote:
I don't believe that I have read in ANY version about the assumption of Mary in there...
Yeah…that would have been sort of hard at the time of the writing of Acts since she was still active in her earthly life…and she was still alive during the time most of the rest of the NT was written. Sorry, I didn't mean that it should be in the Acts of the Apostles. My humblest apologies. If I would have spoken more clearly, I would have expanded it to include all of written (thus provable) scripture. I can however help you understand more clearly!- Written (thus provable) scripture DOES (clearly) say that NO-ONE but Jesus Christ is (was) capable of living a sinless life! (This does include Mary, unless one's position is supported on the sandy beach of Traditions that aren't written in scripture (and are, thereby, unprovable) while at the same time, try vainly to contradict (that word...) where His provable Word says she had other children even though her husband restrained himself from 'knowing' her until after her first child was born.)quote:
quote:
This, I see, is the heart of your error... Individuals do not get to say what is or is not the tradition of the apostles, especially when it is used to suit their private theology: This includes even a large group of individuals.
The Church is not a large group of individuals and what it believes is not decided by majority vote or by imposition of a managing hierarchy. LOL... uh...Right!quote:
It believes what the Spirit teaches. But ignores much of what Christ taught. (It is written) quote:
If her hierarchs err and depart from the faith then they are driven out if they don’t repent, and any individual or group of individuals who try to foist some error from the ground up will quickly find themselves on the receiving end of the episcopacy’s God given authority to rule and protect the Church. Is this the heirarchy you just said didn't exist!?! The other possibility that can be (and has provably been) the result of the "Those who try to foist some error, etc" is, depending on whatever political, military, and/or financial motivations led them to do so, sometimes BECOME the authority in that church...
(Please make absolutely certain you qualify your next statement; What you call "Church" needs to be delineated as to whose it is. I will contend that mine is Christ's, as it shows forth fruit that is the same as described by Him in his written (and thereby, provable) Word.)quote:
Church is a Divinely ordered, indwelt, and protected corporate organism. Different ones are indwelt by different spirits. Christ tells us in His written (and thereby provable) Word that the fruit will show plainly who's spirit it is indwelt by.quote:
She is the Body and Bride of Christ…nothing less. AMEN!quote:
quote:
The final authority is His Word, which He has Providentially preserved and distributed to His people, so that we might be able to recognize wolves when we are confronted by them.
This is certainly what protestants believe as a whole. The Church however teaches that the Tradition is the final authority of which Scripture is the core part of which truth the Scriptures affirm…Keep the Tradition. LOL... Why do you think we protested?!? Your (unverifiable and unprovable) 'Tradition' was 'foisted' as able to trump Gods' written (and thereby provable) Word. Doesn't take more than a second grader to get this figured out!quote:
quote:
I have studied God's word exhaustively and repeatedly, yet I find this nowhere in it. Could you kindly direct me to where I may find it? The only limitation on this is that it be in the scriptures that have been preserved and passed on to His people.
You have already been pointed to Revelation but you won’t accept that reference…again not that there has to be any Scripture reference for it to be true. I HAVE been pointed to Revelation. The fact remains that I am not an idiot, and can see that it doesn't fit with scripture, unless you view it through the lens of unverifiable Tradition, and simultaneously apply the idea that Revelation is not written to say exactly what it says. Nowhere else in Gods word does He do this, except for where He clearly states He is doing so.quote:
quote:
This means it needs to be in the scriptures that were approved by the original canon.
You mean of course the canon as passed to and through the Church who does believe in the catching away of the Mother of God. Yes, that one... before it decided it needed to start changing things. THAT'S WHY THEY KNEW THEY HAD TO GET IT NAILED DOWN... Too many had already tried to mess it up.quote:
quote:
”Do you see how the house of cards tumbles to the ground when shown in the light of the Word?”
My house is still standing…how’s that foundation of sand working out for you?
I commend that the storm hasn't as yet washed away the sands of unverifiable Tradition! The author of those IS a master, so that isn't too surprising. However, the Author, upon Whose written (provable) Word, nay, upon Whom, His house stands upon, is ROCK SOLID under my feet! Praise be to the Word Himself!
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 3/8/2007 4:36:12 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/8/2007 6:07:38 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Ok, this isn't a thread about the sinlessness of Mary or about her ever virginity, it is about her being caught away by Christ when she reposed.
We agree that the written and unwritten portions of the Tradition need to stand in agreement with each other. You take exception to something perporting to be the Tradition of the Apostles which you believe stands in contradiction to the Scriptures.
So please tell me given that Enoch and Elijah were caught away prior to their deaths, and that something special was going on with the Body of Moses when he died (since we see him with Elijah on Mt. Tabor)...given these prior things which are recorded in the OT...what about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin strikes you as condradicting Scripture?
Is it the contention that Christ raised and glorified her and caught her away?
Is it the contention that after being caught away she appeared to the Apostles and told them what happened and that she would continue in her prayers for them and the whole Church?
Does Christ lack the power to catch away His mother?
Is there some spiritual or moral impropriaty in Him taking her at that time?
Is it scandalous that Christ would show honor to His Mother?
Is any Christian injured or diminished by her being caught away?
So where is the contradition of any point of Scripture. I don't see it, even in supposition.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/8/2007 6:39:29 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1342
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Papa-san, you said 'contradiction' a few times.
Where is the contradiction of the Tradition in the Bible?
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/9/2007 12:26:20 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
What is this sinless thing you keep bringing up. That is another thread, not this thread.
How does your bone with the teaching of her sinlessness have any direct connection to the topic of this tread?
You have yet to show any contradiction...your only problem is that you don't see it sufficiently documented in Scripture for your taste...that is not a contradiction of Scripture.
Nothing is mentioned in Scripture about the birth of a litter of kittens in rural Kansas...doesn't mean that no kittens were born there because you can't prove it from scripture. Does America not exist because it is not named explicitly in Scripture. I recall no mention of Papasan in scripture...so how can you possibly exist....cheesh.
Absence of mention is not contradiction. Cryptic reference is not contradiction. So where it the contradiction.
You don't really have one do you...cause if you did you could "prove" that Christ didn't take her from the Scriptures...something this important that affects so many Christians...He must have forseen it and left some definative verse somewhere that cannot possibly construed any other reasonable way than to say she would not be caught away at her repose. But we both know those verses don't exist.
So...there is no contradiction of the Scriptures...just your perferred religious unbeliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/9/2007 8:06:04 AM
|
|
|
txheart
Posts: 49
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
