Assumption of st. Mary

[joe370]

Hey Rinnie, you said…

Christ continues to nurture our life through the Church. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your Mother. The body of Christ is one. Christ is the head of the body and th faithful are the members of the living body alive in the Holy Spirit. This is the teaching’s of our Lord and our living Church on earth.

It’s also the teaching of the bible and one of the reasons why I came home to Jesus’ church. Protestant founders, by starting new churches, have removed themselves from the promised perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who is forever guiding Jesus’ established church into all truth until the end of time, again, according to the bible. I think this is why protestant leaders downplay the importance of doctrinal truth, infallibly speaking.

Jesus loved us so that he sent his son to redeem us. He died andr rose for our salvation. He loved us so that he selected Apostle whom would build his Church and have the responsibility of carrying out and completing the work he began.

As a former non-Catholic I started to see that apostolic succession was/is the key to doctrinal truth. It’s this cohesive lineage through time, until the end of time, that allows the HS to safeguard Jesus’ teachings and keep Jesus’ Mystical Body one and united, doctrinally speaking. Jesus’ Mystical Body may be fractured now, due to the creation of new churches founded by man as opposed to God, but truth was not, and never will be compromised; it is safely protected by the HS in the house of the living God, founded by Jesus the Christ, and that is why the holy bible calls Jesus’ church the pillar and foundation of truth. I simply don’t understand why protestants downplay the following passage:

*…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. *

There is only one truth regarding any one doctrine, and in order to know that one truth regarding any one doctrine we must find the church founded by Jesus, logically speaking, for all truth is revealed through His one church, according to scripture. If Jesus is the founder of the CC, and He is, then the assumption of Mary really occurred. I have literally begged non-Catholics to disprove the notion that the CC was founded by God, but no takers and there is a reason why there are no takers.

It seems real simple: if one finds the church founded by God, one will find the answer to the question: was our blessed mother Mary assumed into heaven both body and soul?

In my humble opinion, until non-Catholics stop believing (as was the case for me) - that all truth is revealed through the word of God (bible alone) - and start believing that all truth regarding the word of God, be it oral tradition or written tradition, is revealed through the church founded by Jesus, division will continue to wreak havoc on Jesus’ fractured Mystical Body, but, doctrinal truth will remain unhampered and unaltered in the church (which is part of the Mystical Body) - **established by God (as opposed to man) in the 1st century, in Jerusalem on Pentecost. **

 

[rschermer2]

Did you read Lev 12:6-8 Bringing a sacrifice was for a sin offering. If Mary was sinless then why go to the temple and offer a sacrifice.

As for Luke 1 They were believers in God but that does not mean that they had no sin in theirs lives. We are all born with original sin. As believers in Christ we are all justified in His eyes./quo

What exactly is a born again Catholic? It seems it is not actually Catholic, is that true?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well whats definatly dated is:

Council of Ephesus 431- By the time the council meet it was widely known that Mary was considered Theotokos. God Bearer, Mother od God. The council confirmed this thinking and put to rest any other theory.

Yet before this council, by the end of the 2nd century, start of the 3rd, Christians addressed this Prayer to Mary. Which is the oldest known Prayer to Mary.

"We fly to thy patronage, Oh Holy Mother of God;

despise not our petitions in our necessities,

but deliever us always from all dangers,

O glorious and Blessed Virgin," Amen

Mary also contemplates with wonder and celebrates with veneration the immense greatness conferred on Her by the One who wanted to be her Son. The expression “Mother of God” refers to the Word of God, who in the Incarnation assumed the lowliness of the human condition in order to raise man to divine sonship. But in the light of the sublime dignity conferred on the Virgin of Nazareth, this title also proclaims the nobility of woman and her loftiest vocation. God in fact treats Mary as a free and responsible person and does not bring about the Incarnation of his Son until after he has obtained her consent.

And this is exactly the consideration and utmost respect Mary receives in Heaven, and through the Bible. This is scripture. So how one may conclude that at this time she would receive less Honor and Respect? I can’t seem to grasp or understand. If anything, Our Lady would hold a more sacred place after the fulfillment of her responsibilty. Which would be the exact thinking of Queen of Heaven and the new Ark of the Covenant. And this would fall right in line with the prevoius scripture I mentioned in a previous post.

But yes, I have no doubt this thinking of Mary dates back even earlier than the turn of the first century. I don’t see where this a reach at all.

And believe me if I consider myself anything, its a realist. But also as mentioned above by Rinnie. We also come to believe that which we find true in our own practical experience in life. Once something happens in our own life, the reality of whats said in the Bible and the gravity of it seriously hits you. And it just confirms that which you’ve already read and been taught. It just drives it home and erases whatever doubt may have existed.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hello David,

The way in which this is written, a person not familiar with the Bible might think that the person you’re quoting and writing about is named “Timothy” and that he “would have objected” and so on. When in fact, you are obviously writing about, First or Second Timothy in the New Testament, letters written by the Apostle, St. Paul, who was clearly not in favor of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone).
It would be helpful if you actually posted the Bible verse(s) that you write about, rather than post your own opinions, or personal interpretation(s). If I were to agree with your errant, sixteenth century Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura, which I don’t, then using your own arguments here, your words here are totally meaningless, since they are all extra-biblical… right?

Why is it that the biggest supporters of Sola Scriptura are the ones who abuse it the most and are the ones who will take one or two Bible verses (out of context) and then add an hour of their own opinions and commentary, which are all extra-biblical?

Does this make any sense to you?

Thank you for proving my point.

Howdy You are right ,I meant Paul writing to Timothy - worded quickly , my excuse -past midnight, 90 degree day at the N.Y.StateFair…Did not put in 2nd Tim.3:16 , for same reason , but it was listed in what I was replying to. Paul against scriptural authority ? You did the same, ,just gave me your opinion with no scriptural backup… My words are only meaningless if they are false, regardless if they are biblical or extra-biblical ,support tradition or “scripture only” or church dogma ,or just my opinion. Would you rather I expound on tradition for an hour or so ? Perhaps I should be silent and just pose the question again (this is NOT an opinion) . If you need tradition to understand some scriptures (as the CC teaches), then is not 2nd Timothy 3:16 false ?

 

[joe370]

rschermer2;7013922]

Did you read Lev 12:6-8 Bringing a sacrifice was for a sin offering. If Mary was sinless then why go to the temple and offer a sacrifice.

One could also make the same argument regarding Jesus: If Jesus was sinless then why the need for the holy family to go to the temple and offer a sacrifice? The sacrifice was a sin offering for the entire family, not just Mary, the mother of God.

What would you expect the holy family to do? Say something like: my name is Mary and myself and my baby, Jesus are both sinless, and therefore no need to present a sin offering, and oh yeah, by the way, my baby is God? The holy family was simply doing what the law required: “keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord.”

When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons.

What exactly is a born again Catholic? It seems it is not actually Catholic, is that true?

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey Dave, how’s it going?

I am not sure why this matters; it is not germane to my point. There were many so called canonical books floating around early on, but eventually rejected once measured against Apostolic Tradition as well as apocryphal books making there way around the known world. It was from within the CC that doctrinal truth regarding the correct inclusion of books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible - was revealed. Your NT could have ended up with books in the bible that are not, and never were, meant to be part of the inspired word of god, if not for the CC. Now, by the time we get to the 16th century (king james bible) - this was no longer an issue; sacred scripture had already received its stamp of approval by the CC in the 4th century…

Yup, thanks to the fact that the CC got rid of all those spurious books. For a while the book of Hebrews, revelation, James, some of Johns letter, and one of Peter’s letters were doubted as being part of the canon, while other books that didn’t make the cut today were embraced in certain churches in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries as part of the canon and read at church services. The thousands to which you are referring, were already considered part of the canon for roughly a thousand years. The debate was over. I don’t see your point???

To reject…??? Really?

So, the CC in the latter part of the 4th century, got lucky regarding the correct collection, selection, compilation and codification of the bible, but, according to your logic, could have still certainly taught erroneously regarding other things. Is this what you are saying? I thought the HS was guiding Jesus’ church into all truth as opposed to partial truth, which includes the correct inclusion of the books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible. **How do you know that the generation that eventually codified your bible didn’t get it wrong? **

I am glad you asked that question.It’s simple: Either the HS is forever safeguarding doctrinal truth…guiding Jesus’ established church into all truth or He is not. Do you doubt the power of God and His ability to preserve doctrinal truth in Jesus’ church, until the end of time? God cannot fail in spite of the fallible sinners leading Jesus’ church - right?

Well, if it went south at some time in history, then I would no longer be a Christian for I would doubt the power of God to do what He said He would do.

I have some phobia’s (like spiders; I hate spiders…LOL) - but not the one you are referring to. I trust God to do what God said he would do - that’s all.

I know and that’s awesome. I love it when churches merge, doctrinally speaking. We need to be one and united not many and divided - right?

Well, it’s late and I got to get up early. Have a good night…

Hello -had a good chuckle with the thumps up.You are right .I am a bit muddled with some points .not germaine .Yet , it is ironic but what you preserved and used most , the Latin bible (Vulgate) , the King James rejected as inferior or variant to the other 5000 manuscripts (-Hebrew and Greek). So , much of PC is due to people having the bible in own language and manuscripts go way back before 1600’s (2nd cent. and up). So , you can say we "started " 16th C. but our foundation (bible translation) is earlier than the Latin. Also, some catholic dogma is more supported in Latin than in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. However , you are quite correct , the early church and later Roman catholic preserved not only the Latin , but the Hebrew and Greek , unless the Orthodox church preserved them also (do not know).“Textus Receptus” I believe is the term used for all those 5000 scripture copies which were translated into the most prominent PC bibles (English ,German,Swiss etc.). Many modern translations are leaving the TR and going to the Latin ones (Alexandria ? or the ones found out of Egypt -dating to 350 A.D. , perhaps 2 of the 50 that Constantine had done -I think by Jerome).That is what I meant by accepting or rejecting , altering earlier manuscripts in favor of others(NIV is a good example) I am not talking about the 27 books ,but fragments and copies of said books ,written in Greek or Latin…I am not saying the church got lucky in the beginning when the bible was ratified .It was miraculous O.K. ? It was inspired .I understand you historical need and viewpoint .I am only sharing another view of history of Christ’s church .I suppose it is very hard to see it from any other viewpoint than your own ,even impossible,except for God…So I will try again, Yes , the church erred later on .How do you know that God was faithful by raising up one of your own , to help bring the Church back. That was Luther a catholic monk , so were many other reformers fully Catholic , more than you or I .They took on Holy Orders their burden for righteousness was so great.One must admit ,if she did err , there was ALWAYS a voice to signal it (they would be called Heretics-please,just some of them).) See how I view it ? I am with you on your correct scriptural guideline , that Jesus is faithful to us, His Church , to the end. Perhaps you can disagree , but please do not be confused. Again, because of Revelations (the 7 churches that were exhorted to keep the faith to the end ,because they could lose it ) ,I do not think once His church always his church . Too many P churches have started out great ,only to end up going weird or wrong someway .God is faithful to that church to warn them and some leave before the fall. This is a protestant lens , but that does not deny it’s plausibility for the Catholic Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey Dave…

I will gladly concede that the fractured Mystical Body of Christ,* (the bride of Christ, is made up of all believers whose souls have been washed in the blood)* - is comprised of all churches regardless of denomination, of which Jesus is the head and savior, but only one of these churches comprising Jesus’ fractured Mystical Body, was founded by Jesus; the rest were founded by by man, and therefore the logic that I have employed does not fit with the protestant meaning of church. We cannot historically and reliably conclude that Jesus established all of these man-made protestant churches in the 1st century, in Jerusalem on Pentecost for they all are products of the 16th century Protestant reformation.

Dave, help me find the historical church founded by God circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost by Jesus, endowed by Jesus with the authority to teach, to the very ends of the earth, until the end of time? That is the church that knows the truth regarding the assumption of Mary.

Teachers, saints, lay people and elders belonging to different autonomous churches with their own unique charter based on Sola Scriptura, isolated from one another and instituted by men as opposed to God, which begs the question: why the need for teachers if the bible as opposed to people, is the Christians final authority? Take it right to sacred scripture for the answer; no need for any fallible teacher - right?

Yup…The question gives way to 2 different answers though, depending on which church one belongs to. Which church should we trust: the church founded by Jesus (I will build my church…) - or a church founded by man?

Dave, Jesus was suppose to be the head of just one united Body of believers called the church,** (as opposed to divided, isolated autonomous churches)** - with many members, all of which were not to have the same function - right?

Did God fail to be the head of just one church started by His Son, or did people fail God, by starting their own churches?

Romans 12:4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

It seems like you are Jewish , in that you are looking on the outside and not on the inside .By one baptism are we not written in the Book of Life.Yet you see Fracture-Lutheran ,Baptist etc. .Does not Jesus see past this (but he does not miss it) and see the miracle of new life and faith? Does it say fractured in scripture ? Why do you kick against His plan ,of the wheat with the tares in His field ? If you want to focus on the outward ,visible, institutional church instead,and pick and judge ,as the apostles did with Jesus’ other followers. Thankfully we agree we are in the same body( not as catholic or protestant -that is big …I am sorry to be harsh ,but I can not overcome circular reasoning that began so long ago( 3-4 th century ), when Rome started saying she was the church and not the other patriarchs of Jerusalem ,Antioch ,Alexandria. On the outward appearance you may have precedence , but the inside is what counts , being a true son of Abraham , in spirit and in truth (as some Catholics are , as well as Orthodox and Protestants ).Help me find a true christian that acts and believes in apostolic fashion and I should attend his church …Again ,you see God’s teachers and prophets etc. but only thru their denomination and isolated Why ? Are they not God’s as you seem to agree and part of the SAME body ? Now i am confused ,isolated but part of the same body .Again ,you misconstrue the scenario. Scripture calls for teachers etc.This is not against SE.Why do you dramatize the scenario ? It leads away from at least understanding the other side .You can not agree , but please understand. It would be like me saying that you claim God gives you a (the) Church /Tradition , so why bother with the bible at all as a lay person ? But I am not asking that , because you and God have made me understand your position …A married couple may fight from time to time and be totally two different human beings and have different views and desires , yet they are somehow , from God’s eyes ONE. So God has not failed the church , and the church has not failed Him . We are ONE, SOMEHOW ,in God’s eyes.Alleluia

 

[joe370]

Dave, you said:

I suppose it is very hard to see it from any other viewpoint than your own…

Not at all; I will really try to understand the following from your perspective:

So I will try again, Yes , the church erred later on .

Provide proof and I will believe you!!! Again, I could say that the CC erred early on, and that the CC erred regarding the NT, but this is an impossibility for you for the simple fact that that fact would upset the Sola Scriptura applecart.

Why should I believe that the CC got it right about some things and wrong about other things, and who has the right to determine what these right things, or wrong things are?

Dave, if the CC erred prior to or after the codification of the bible, then CC could have erred regarding the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible? To say otherwise is illogical. To insist that the CC erred regarding the deposit of faith is to call into question what the bible teaches regarding the holy spirit. Jesus said to just one church regarding truth:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,* to be with you forever…
**
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,** He will teach you all things,** and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father,** He will testify about Me.**

But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.** But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
**
*

If the CC erred regarding something that Jesus taught, then the Holy spirit failed.

I do not think once His church always his church . Too many P churches have started out great ,only to end up going weird or wrong someway .

What do you mean, you do not think once His church always his church?

They started out great and then end up going weird because these churches were founded by man as opposed to God.

Dave you believe that the CC in the latter part of the 4th century,** by a miraculous intervention on the part of the Holy spirit, Who is forever guiding the CC into all truth, **correctly collected, selected, compiled and eventually codified the bible, but, taught erroneously, at a later date, regarding other things?

You believe that the CC in the latter part of the 4th century, (that eventually codified your bible) - could not have erred regarding the correct inclusion of books in the bible or the correct exclusion of books from the bible, but regarding other things could have erred?

Dave, either the HS is forever safeguarding doctrinal truth…guiding Jesus’ established church into all truth or He is not - right?

Do you doubt the power of God **and His ability to preserve doctrinal truth in Jesus’ church, until the end of time? ** If you say no, then that is a good starting point for us.

Peace brother…

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey Dave…you said in response to my question:

Agreed, with the exception that these P churches claim that the holy bible is the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal conflicts, which begs the question: why are these pastors teaching their flock? They should simply tell them to defer to their bibles as opposed to the pastor from the pulpit.

ese").

Dave, do you believe that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ established church **into all truth? That’s what the bible tells us.
**

If the CC is not the church founded by God on Pentecost in Jerusalem circa AD 33 then that would be a claim that the CC could not back up -agreed? But, if the CC is…then the HS is guiding the CC into all truth.

Your point being is that the bible via individual interpretation is the Christians final authority as opposed to any church leadership teaching authoritatively?

Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition embraced by all PC’s and the very reason why there is so much division in the protestant world.

How do you know that the bible is the pure word of God, untainted and unaltered by the CC that supposedly gave us altered, tainted and spurious tradition? Prove to me that the CC didn’t add impurities to the word of God (written tradition) - considering the fact that they supposedly added impurities elsewhere eg oral tradition. You can’t have it both ways Dave.

The CC is apostolic if the CC can trace her origin all the way back to the apostles, and the CC can. Protestants reject the importance of this little fact for the simple fact that they can only trace their lineage back to the reformation, at best.

Apostolic is as apostolic does . Do you remember Job and his fourth friend ? He was the youngest ? He also happened to be the wisest .The first shall be last ? Jesus said we all get paid the same , whether you started at 8 a.m. or 3 p.m…Within protestantism I suppose I would judge a denomination on it’s merits , not just it’s longevity. Some of the best most growing denominations are the youngest and some of the oldest are stagnant and even shrinking.Notice I do not reject longevity as a merit .It is just one of many. I understand your claim but simply disagree as noted in previous posts…Sin divides. Keeping scripture as a standard or even " the " standard is not a sin in itself . For within "the "standard " are all the things you admonish -church, tradition, teachers, elders/bishops, sacraments, the Body, universalism (catholicism), unity, free will, leadership, vicarship, foundation. In the end, who cares, as long as you are written in the Book of Life. That is the MAIN thing. Alleluia

 

[david_ruiz]

Dave, you said:

Not at all; I will really try to understand the following from your perspective:

Provide proof and I will believe you!!! Again, I could say that the CC erred early on, and that the CC erred regarding the NT, but this is an impossibility for you for the simple fact that that fact would upset the Sola Scriptura applecart.

Why should I believe that the CC got it right about some things and wrong about other things, and who has the right to determine what these right things, or wrong things are?

Dave, if the CC erred prior to or after the codification of the bible, then CC could have erred regarding the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible? To say otherwise is illogical. To insist that the CC erred regarding the deposit of faith is to call into question what the bible teaches regarding the holy spirit. Jesus said to just one church regarding truth:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,* to be with you forever…

---

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,** He will teach you all things,** and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father,** He will testify about Me.**

But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.** But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
**

If the CC erred regarding something that Jesus taught, then the Holy spirit failed.

What do you mean, you do not think once His church always his church?

They started out great and then end up going weird because these churches were founded by man as opposed to God.

Dave you believe that the CC in the latter part of the 4th century,** by a miraculous intervention on the part of the Holy spirit, Who is forever guiding the CC into all truth, **correctly collected, selected, compiled and eventually codified the bible, but, taught erroneously, at a later date, regarding other things?

You believe that the CC in the latter part of the 4th century, (that eventually codified your bible) - could not have erred regarding the correct inclusion of books in the bible or the correct exclusion of books from the bible, but regarding other things could have erred?

Dave, either the HS is forever safeguarding doctrinal truth…guiding Jesus’ established church into all truth or He is not - right?

Do you doubt the power of God **and His ability to preserve doctrinal truth in Jesus’ church, until the end of time? ** If you say no, then that is a good starting point for us.

Peace brother…

Do you not know anyone who was great then fell from grace ? Why does this seem illogical ? A tragedy , a shame , heartbreak yes, but not illogical . Where is the logic that says Catholics put the bible together , therefore the bible can never say Catholics are wrong in the next 1500 years . Catholics did have a Reformation did they not ? That means they went astray a bit then corrected .So to say you can not err is not historical. Catholics may say they were minor issues , but not according to other Catholics who were there at the time, untainted by historical bias , felt it was not enough and were wrong in major areas . This is Catholic history. Would the Reformation have even happened if not for a rival faith/church, that took much Catholic membership with it ? …My friend, we will all stand before God and He will find each of us responsible for the faith he has placed in us , and His spirit judges all things for us( which bible ,which church ,which dogma ) (Job -his 4th friend-the spirit of God within a man)) Yes we are a body and help each other ,but I won’t be with you ,at your side, on the judgement day. … .Tell me if you were with Jesus , would you tell him you had to double check everything he said to you with others first ?(Is not the Holy Spirit Jesus ? ) Are those H.S. scriptures just for the apostles/successors and not for the lay person , as several Catholic posts stated ? …I do not see “Holy Roman Catholic Church” in those scriptures, therefore if the CC fails , I do not see the H.S. failing. I see "you " in those scriptures, the apostles disciples and believers that were baptized in the Holy Spirit- thru the ages…You know the teaching of “once saved always saved " that some P churches believe ? Well, that is what I think you are doing with “Church”.You know for a while it was the Jerusalem church ,then the Antioch church ,and Alexandria etc. all working in unison with their head bishops ,and then came Rome.It helped in many ways ,but…the rest is history …Thank you .you are getting my scenario right without any jabs (about CC getting it right -Bible etc -then getting it wrong) You then say He is guiding doctrinal truth(I agree) but then you qualify scripture and put in “established " church (as in CC)-being guided forever (I disagree). Do not be offended .I do not even believe that for my “church”. I believe I am exhorted to pray for my leadership /pastor ,to keep on the narrow path and not stray ,as he does for me. Personal salvation is not conditional in this covenant , but for a church to remain having a” lampstick”(H.S.) is conditional ,as described in Revelations…Yes, Jesus/H.S. will present His bride spotless. Yes , He keeps us under His wings. Yes, his Church will be spotless. I prefer to use “Bride” or "Body " because it is harder to infuse fleshly denominationalism in our equation. Alleluia

 

[joe370]

Dave you said:

The CC is apostolic if the CC can trace her origin all the way back to the apostles, and the CC can. Protestants reject the importance of this little fact for the simple fact that they can only trace their lineage back to the reformation, at best.
Apostolic is as apostolic does . Do you remember Job and his fourth friend ? He was the youngest ? He also happened to be the wisest .The first shall be last ? Jesus said we all get paid the same , whether you started at 8 a.m. or 3 p.m…Within protestantism I suppose I would judge a denomination on it’s merits , not just it’s longevity. Some of the best most growing denominations are the youngest and some of the oldest are stagnant and even shrinking.Notice I do not reject longevity as a merit .It is just one of many. I understand your claim but simply disagree as noted in previous posts…Sin divides. Keeping scripture as a standard or even " the " standard is not a sin in itself . For within "the "standard " are all the things you admonish -church, tradition, teachers, elders/bishops, sacraments, the Body, universalism (catholicism), unity, free will, leadership, vicarship, foundation. In the end, who cares, as long as you are written in the Book of Life. That is the MAIN thing. Alleluia

None of the preceding addressed the questions I asked:

These P churches claim that the holy bible is the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal conflicts, which begs the question: why are these pastors teaching their flock? They should simply tell them to defer to their bibles as opposed to the pastor from the pulpit - yes no?

Dave, do you believe that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ established church into all truth? That’s what the bible tells us.

If the CC is not the church founded by God on Pentecost in Jerusalem circa AD 33 then that would be a claim that the CC could not back up -agreed? But, if the CC is…then the HS is guiding the CC into all truth.

Your point being is that the bible via individual interpretation is the Christians final authority as opposed to any church leadership teaching authoritatively?

Is Sola scriptura the very reason why there is so much division in the protestant world, if not then what caused it? Please don’t say sin for that is a foregone conclusion.

How do you know that the bible is the pure word of God, untainted and unaltered by the CC that supposedly gave us altered, tainted and spurious tradition? Prove to me that the CC didn’t add impurities to the word of God (written tradition) - considering the fact that they supposedly added impurities elsewhere eg oral tradition. You can’t have it both ways Dave.

 

[joe370]

Dave, do you defer to the authority of your church leadership, doctrinally speaking?

 

[joe370]

Dave, this is a bit off topic but let’s assume that you are right and I am wrong. Let’s assume that the inspired word of God (bible alone) - is the sole source of truth and the Christians only authority regarding faith and morals, and everything and anything outside the purview of sacred scripture is extraneous at best.

With that said, surely God left the world with an inspired interpreter for His inspired word.

Can you please identify the inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Do you not know anyone who was great then fell from grace ?

Personally, yeah, I know of people who have fallen from Grace, lots of them… almost everyone, at some point. I have fell from grace. Life is a struggle against good and evil and when we sin we turn away from God and when we ask for forgiveness, He welcomes us back. It happens all the time and that is why we need the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Confession). Here are some examples of people in the Bible who have had their own problems…

• Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil.
• King David, it’s my understanding, turned to Pagan gods and the occult, late in his life and David cheated on his wife with a married woman and killed the husband…
• Peter denied Christ three times.
• Judas Iscariot, betrayed Christ and he was an apostle.

**John 6:60-67 **
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

---

One of the main themes of Christianity is FIRGIVNESS. If we were all perfect… or became perfect, once we were “Saved” then why the emphasis on confessing sins and forgiveness in the Bible and in Christianity?

 

[John_oxios]

Rinnie,

Let’s suppose that the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary. Her soul could be in heaven w/out her body couldn’t it? There are others in Revelations who are described as being physically in heaven but no theologian, as far as I know, jumps to the conclusion that they have also been assumed body and soul into heaven.

How about Moses and Elijah @ the Transfiguration? Elijah was taken up… Moses was buried according to scripture. Both standing with Jesus. Not spirits But Moses and Elijah,

Deu 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD,

Deu 34:6 and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe’or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day.

Deu 34:7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

• Peter was going to build them a tent?*

Mar 9:3 and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them.

Mar 9:4 And there appeared to them Eli’jah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus.

Mar 9:5 And Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli’jah.”

Mar 9:6 For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid.

God bless,
John

 

[dosdog]

Yes, so, why should I believe the assumption happened?

(*Text from ANF, vol. 8.)The Account of St. John the Theologian of the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God
. And when she had thus prayed, the Lord said to His mother: Let thy heart rejoice and be glad; for every favour and every gift has been given to thee from my Father in heaven, and from me, and from the Holy Spirit: every soul that calls upon thy name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy, and comfort, and support, and confidence, both in the world that now is, and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens. And the Lord turned and said to Peter: The time has come to begin the singing of the hymn. And Peter having begun the singing of the hymn, all the powers of the heavens responded with the Alleluiah. And then the face of the mother of the Lord shone brighter than the light, and she rose up and blessed each of the apostles with her own hand, and all gave glory to God; and the Lord stretched forth His undefiled hands, and received her holy and blameless soul. And with the departure of her blameless soul the place was filled with perfume and ineffable light; and, behold, a voice out of the heaven was heard, saying: Blessed art thou among women. And Peter, and I John, and Paul, and Thomas, ran and wrapped up her precious feet for the consecration; and the twelve apostles put her precious and holy body upon a couch

 

[John_oxios]

Personally, yeah, I know of people who have fallen from Grace, lots of them… almost everyone, at some point. I have fell from grace. Life is a struggle against good and evil and when we sin we turn away from God and when we ask for forgiveness, He welcomes us back. It happens all the time and that is why we need the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Confession). Here are some examples of people in the Bible who have had their own problems…

• Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil.
• King David, it’s my understanding, turned to Pagan gods and the occult, late in his life and David cheated on his wife with a married woman and killed the husband…
• Peter denied Christ three times.
• Judas Iscariot, betrayed Christ and he was an apostle.

**John 6:60-67 **
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Actually it as solomon who allowed his egyptian wife (Also a no -no) to place her god in the Temple so Solomon and her could worship side by side.

It wasn’t grace they fell from… Grace is given through Jesus Death on tthe Cross, it’s why we are gretaer than John the Baptist, He died before Grace was given.

In the O.T. God show’s His favor by allowing the Holy Spirit upon on His chosen instrments… and withdraws the spirit when they disobey God… David prays

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me.

Num 11:17 And I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take some of the spirit which is upon you and put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone.

Num 11:26 Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and** the spirit rested upon them**; they were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp

jdg 3:10 The Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel; he went out to war, and the LORD gave Cu’shan-rishatha’im king of Mesopota’mia into his hand; and his hand prevailed over Cu’shan-rishatha’im.

1Sa 10:10 When they came to Gib’e-ah, behold, a band of prophets met him; and the spirit of God came mightily upon him, and he prophesied among them.

1Sa 11:6 And the spirit of God came mightily upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled

 

[Jimmy_B]

Rinnie,

Let’s suppose that the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary. Her soul could be in heaven w/out her body couldn’t it? There are others in Revelations who are described as being physically in heaven but no theologian, as far as I know, jumps to the conclusion that they have also been assumed body and soul into heaven.

“jumps to conclusions”

You don’t actually believe that the Catholic Church, the Church the create Ecumenical Councils, Universities and Hospitals; the Church that takes hundreds of years to make a decision on Saints and takes hundreds of years to approve the Bible and take Hundreds of years to define Christian doctrine and so on, “jumped to conclusions” when it came to the Assumption of May?

The Catholic Church, all 2000 years, should not be viewed the same as some guy interpreting the Bible today. You won’t ever understand Catholicism, if you view it through a modern, Protestant, Evangelical lens

 

[dosdog]

“jumps to conclusions”

You don’t actually believe that the Catholic Church, the Church the create Ecumenical Councils, Universities and Hospitals; the Church that takes hundreds of years to make a decision on Saints and takes hundreds of years to approve the Bible and take Hundreds of years to define Christian doctrine and so on, “jumped to conclusions” when it came to the Assumption of May?

The Catholic Church, all 2000 years, should not be viewed the same as some guy interpreting the Bible today. You won’t ever understand Catholicism, if you view it through a modern, Protestant, Evangelical lens

There must be alot of people whom hate thier mothers - The King of Kings would not have a place for His mother - Let alone bride of The Holy Spirit

Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee

 

[Jimmy_B]

Actually…It wasn’t grace they fell from… Grace is given through Jesus Death on tthe Cross, it’s why we are gretaer than John the Baptist, He died before Grace was given.

In the O.T. God show’s His favor by allowing the Holy Spirit upon on His chosen instrments… and withdraws the spirit when they disobey God…

Hello John,

Good point and I understand what you are saying here and for the most part, I agree. However, I don’t know if you appreciate my point, which is that there have always been stories of people in the Bible who initially found favor from God and then fell, then, some were forgiven and welcomed back by God. That’s not only the story of Salvation (Old and New Testamant), it’s part of the human condition…

Some Old Testament examples of God’s grace -

Genesis 6:8

But Noah found favor with the LORD.

Genesis 10:9
He was a mighty hunter by the grace of the LORD; hence the saying, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter by the grace of the LORD.”

Job 10:12
Grace and favor you granted me, and your providence has preserved my spirit.

Wisdom 3:9
Those who trust in him shall understand truth, and the faithful shall abide with him in love: Because grace and mercy are with his holy ones, and his care is with the elect.

Psalms 84:12
For a sun and shield is the LORD God, bestowing all grace and glory. The LORD withholds no good thing from those who walk without reproach.

Psalms 85:2
You once favored, LORD, your land, restored the good fortune of Jacob.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. … which will be fulfilled in Christ: … which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, **people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit **and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. … In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom “God’s charity has been poured into our hearts.”

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit.** But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act**. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of… intellect and will to God who reveals”, and to share in an interior communion with him.

**2022 **The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man…

**1889 **Without the help of grace, men would not know how "to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse."…

**1996 **Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

**2000 **Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

**1989 **The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion…

Your thoughts?