Assumption of Mary and Protestants?

[JonNC]

Nothing in the Bible gives any indication of Sola Scriptura, unfortunately for you, the Bible wasn’t just dropped out of the sky friend. It took centuries for it to be completed and then centuries more for it to be fully compiled into a proper canon.

Oh, please. This is just a silly accusation. If you can find a post I’ve made that claims such, please produce it.
Sola scriptura wouldn’t deny that the canon took time to develop. Sola scriptura would not deny the need for a canon, which means rule. And it certainly doesn’t teach that it fell from the sky.

I didn’t post using polemical condescension. Please show the same respect

 

[thephilosopher6]

Oh, please. This is just a silly accusation. If you can find a post I’ve made that claims such, please produce it.
Sola scriptura wouldn’t deny that the canon took time to develop. Sola scriptura would not deny the need for a canon, which means rule. And it certainly doesn’t teach that it fell from the sky.

I didn’t post using polemical condescension. Please show the same respect

I don’t see how you can conclude Sola Scriptura at all, there simply is no basis for it.

 

[tgGodsway]

Elijah was taken up into heaven body and soul, while still alive. Granted the method was unusual …

2 Kings 2:11 NIV

… so as far as I’m concerned, it was an assumption.

As for Protestants not accepting the Assumption, their standard reply will be “It’s not in the Bible”, as though almighty God is limited to the Bible, and can’t possibly step outside it.

Where the Bible makes that claim about itself I have no idea. What is in the Bible is that Christ founded His Church on Peter. He said so, in black and white, in the text anyway, and then called him “Blessed”.

For that matter, Moses body couldn’t be found either, so I would argue he was assumed as well. Since it was Moses and Elijah who appreared at the Transfiguration, then I think a logical argument could be made for Moses’ assumption.

Deuteronomy 34:1-6 NIV

Jude 1:9 NIV

What were they arguing about? The devil wasn’t trying to stop the archangel from assuming Moses’ body was he on some legalistic grounds, was he?

Revelation also speaks about a “Queen of Heaven” …

Revelation 12:1

It’s noteworthy that at Fatima, the most powerful revelation of Mary in modern times, the key role was played by the sun.

ewtn.com/fatima/sixth-apparition-of-our-lady.asp

Mary is the Mother of God in the form of the Mother of God the Son, she is the Queen of Heaven, and she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven.

What? Your statement about Mary the mother of Jesus, did not come from the founders and framers of Christianity but from people who lived Centuries later and were definitely not eye-witnesses to the facts. Jesus said upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. The bible’s witness recorded in scripture describes an entirely different person than what Rome said. Who’s testimony is more accurate? The Men who were led by the Spirit to record our bible narratives? … or men who lived over a thousand years later, who were not there?

 

[JonNC]

I don’t see how you can conclude Sola Scriptura at all, there simply is no basis for it.

I suggest you read what those who ascribe to it have written. That’s the source to look to to answer that question.
I might add that I respect the position you take that you see no basis for SS. That’s a much more reasonable response than “the Bible didn’t fall from the sky.”

 

[tgGodsway]

I noticed how Roman Catholics quote scripture when it seems to benefit them, but dismiss it when scripture conflicts with any Roman tradition. Why is that? Who can forget the warning from our savior as to the frailty of tradition?

tgGodsway

 

[JonNC]

I noticed how Roman Catholics quote scripture when it seems to benefit them, but dismiss it when scripture conflicts with any Roman tradition. Why is that? Who can forget the warning from our savior as to the frailty of tradition?

tgGodsway

I’ve seen others, including American evangelicals, do that, too.

 

[rcwitness]

I noticed how Roman Catholics quote scripture when it seems to benefit them, but dismiss it when scripture conflicts with any Roman tradition. Why is that? Who can forget the warning from our savior as to the frailty of tradition?

tgGodsway

Umm… isn’t the thread about a Sacred Tradition?

 

[tgGodsway]

I agree, there are many in the so-called Protestant world who do the same thing. It is a shame.

If we’re gonna’ discuss the Assumption of Mary and how it relates to Protestants, then, how we tackle this issue in light of scripture should matter. The fact that the Apostolic Church refuted such a premise concerning the identity of Mary should matter if one is going to bring this up at all. Wouldn’t you think?

Augustine, who died in 430 A.D. and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient Church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin” (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24) and went on to say, “Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin.”

Jesus taught that tradition was fragile and under suspicion when it come to truth.
What are your thoughts on this?

tgGodsway

 

[rcwitness]

Augustine, who died in 430 A.D. and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient Church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin” (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24) and went on to say, “Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin.”

Mary and Jesus both had “flesh of sin”, no? The flesh is against the Spirit. Jesus had to overcome His own flesh, which made it holy.

Jesus taught that tradition was fragile and under suspicion when it come to truth.
What are your thoughts on this?

You need to distinguish tradition (customs) from Sacred Tradition (Truth declared by the Church.

tgGodsway

 

[MichaelP3]

Mary and Jesus both had “flesh of sin”, no? The flesh is against the Spirit. Jesus had to overcome His own flesh, which made it holy.

Okay but this boggles my mind somewhat?

I don’t mean Mary but Jesus as you also referred to? What do you mean He has “flesh of sin” and needed to overcome it?

What is the premise of declaring Mary " Mother of God"? That she held God as the “flesh” in her womb? But now I am hearing God and sin in the same statement which doesn’t add up?

Maybe just a clarification and we both agree. Just not sure what you mean?

Regards

 

[JonNC]

Okay but this boggles my mind somewhat?

I don’t mean Mary but Jesus as you also referred to? What do you mean He has “flesh of sin” and needed to overcome it?

What is the premise of declaring Mary " Mother of God"? That she held God as the “flesh” in her womb? But now I am hearing God and sin in the same statement which doesn’t add up?

Maybe just a clarification and we both agree. Just not sure what you mean?

Regards

The premise of the doctrine of the Holy Theotokos is in the Incarnation.

 

[MichaelP3]

The premise of the doctrine of the Holy Theotokos is in the Incarnation.

And what does that exactly mean if it is said that the “flesh” of God, Jesus was “flesh of the sin” and needed to overcome sonething?

I probably have an idea what is meant. This kinda setup just makes me wonder…

Regards

 

[tgGodsway]

Rcwitness said, Mary and Jesus both had “flesh of sin”, no? The flesh is against the Spirit. Jesus had to overcome His own flesh, which made it holy.

When Augustine said Mary’s flesh was sin, he was not referring to her physical body, but her nature to sin. This expression is a common one in scripture and Mary herself cried out to God her savior, implying that she needed salvation. Her sin offering under the law was another expression to the fact that she was a sinner. Augustine was right about that.

Jesus, on the other hand did not have a sin nature simply because He was born of a virgin. Mary had not yet had sexual relations with Joseph when she was found with child. It was a miracle. This new “first-born” boy had no human father, yet as a man he still experienced the frailty of our human self and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. See (Hebrews 4:15)

Rcwitness also said: You need to distinguish tradition (customs) from Sacred Tradition (Truth declared by the Church.

The Pharisees of Jesus day were the elite thinkers in the synagogue (Church meeting place of the O.T.) Between them and the Sadducees, tradition had been elevated beyond the parameters of holy scripture. They too considered tradition to be sacred, as if it could be.

Any tradition that conflicts with the Apostolic Church and her teachings, finds itself in the same situation as the Pharisees did. Jesus rebuked them for their tradition knowing that it was frail and bias.

 

[rcwitness]

Okay but this boggles my mind somewhat?

I don’t mean Mary but Jesus as you also referred to? What do you mean He has “flesh of sin” and needed to overcome it?

Did Christ’s flesh lead His Spirit, or was His flesh put into submission by His Spirit? I’m not implying that Jesus sinned, but that He became sinful flesh. He decended from David, according to the flesh. God, the Spirit became flesh.

What is the premise of declaring Mary " Mother of God"? That she held God as the “flesh” in her womb? But now I am hearing God and sin in the same statement which doesn’t add up?

Maybe just a clarification and we both agree. Just not sure what you mean?

I’m not trying to claim to understand the mystery of the Incarnation. But that is what happened, a mystery of God taking the nature of man. That nature was fallen. Jesus didn’t fall through sin, but descended from heaven, by the Father’s will.

 

[rcwitness]

Any tradition that conflicts with the Apostolic Church and her teachings, finds itself in the same situation as the Pharisees did. Jesus rebuked them for their tradition knowing that it was frail and bias.

I agree. May I ask where you receive Holy Eucharist. Your religion says Catholic Christian. But your beliefs lead me to believe you are opposed to the Catholic Church.

Who is this Apostolic Church? Where are her Teachings?

I don’t argue that nothing should be elevated above Scripture, and nothing should conflict with them.

 

[lanman87]

I agree. May I ask where you receive Holy Eucharist. Your religion says Catholic Christian. But your beliefs lead me to believe you are opposed to the Catholic Church.

Who is this Apostolic Church? Where are her Teachings?

I don’t argue that nothing should be elevated above Scripture, and nothing should conflict with them.

I don’t think he is Roman Catholic but is using the term to mean universal.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay rcwitness and Lanman87,

No… I am not Roman Catholic, nor have I tried to portray myself as such. But I am universal as Lanman87 said. Christians are ALL of the same body since we all believe Jesus is the Christ, (1st. John 4:2) who is the head of the body according to Ephesians 1:22.

Roman Catholics seem to think they own the word Catholic, you do not. I use it on this site because it is thrown around all day long as if it has some kind of higher status. It does not. But I mean no disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church when I say I am also Catholic. I too was saved and filled with the holy Spirit at Holy Rosary Catholic Church in San Antonio back in the early 80’s, my home church since I was a child. I grew up Roman Catholic. Today I am still Catholic, but speak out against all non-apostolic teaching.

To answer your question, rcwitness; Apostolic is a term referring to the earliest founders and framers of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. It is the teachings of the Apostles, recorded in the New Testament. They were the eye-witnesses to Majesty and His resurrection.

If anyone teaches anything contrary to the Apostolic Church, their teaching is false. It is that simple.

I hope I cleared that up for you.
tgGodsway

 

[rcwitness]

Okay rcwitness and Lanman87,

No… I am not Roman Catholic, nor have I tried to portray myself as such. But I am universal as Lanman87 said. Christians are ALL of the same body since we all believe Jesus is the Christ, (1st. John 4:2) who is the head of the body according to Ephesians 1:22.

Yes, we are. Though there is obviously wounds to that union. The Catholic faith professes His Eucharist as the sign of perfect Union (of course partaking in a worthy manner!)

Roman Catholics seem to think they own the word Catholic, you do not. I use it on this site because it is thrown around all day long as if it has some kind of higher status. It does not. But I mean no disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church when I say I am also Catholic. I too was saved and filled with the holy Spirit at Holy Rosary Catholic Church in San Antonio back in the early 80’s, my home church since I was a child. I grew up Roman Catholic. Today I am still Catholic, but speak out against all non-apostolic teaching.

You can call yourself whatever you want. As long as you aren’t Catholic (Catholic Church) and say the things you are saying, while receiving His eucharist.

To answer your question, rcwitness; Apostolic is a term referring to the earliest founders and framers of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. It is the teachings of the Apostles, recorded in the New Testament. They were the eye-witnesses to Majesty and His resurrection.

If anyone teaches anything contrary to the Apostolic Church, their teaching is false. It is that simple.

I hope I cleared that up for you.
tgGodsway

So what is your Apostolic Church? You live now, not in the 1st century.

 

[tgGodsway]

The term Flesh" is used in two different ways scripturally based on context. In one sense your flesh is referring to a physical body. In another context it refers to man’s fallen nature. Bye for now
.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t think any Evangelical churches recognize such a holiday, nor do they believe in the assumption of Mary, as a rule. Now, I don’t think the notion is contradictory to Evangelical beliefs–if it was good enough for Enoch & Elijah, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be for her! But if the Bible doesn’t expressly mention it, Protestants tend not to teach it.

And unfortunately many beliefs Protestants teach are not in the Bible either, yet they teach it. Case in point: faith alone.