B
- Status
K
kaycee
Guest
How do you know Moses, Enoch and Elijah were assumed?
A
andzy
Guest
The Bible tells us so! Doesn’t it tell you the same???
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The Assumption has much implicit biblical support. Pope Pius Xll referred to the scriptures in his Apostolic Constitution ‘Munificentissimus Deus’ when proclaiming this Marian dogma. He ignored the Gnostic sources. Yet these sources reveal what the Church believed about Mary in the preceding centuries of their compositions. The Assumption has “zero” support to outsiders of the Church who erroneously need everything written explicitly and in their vernacular tongue in the Bible in order to accept it. The Spirit of the Word transcends the letter of the Word. Please read the Encyclical of Pius Xll.
By the way, quote one verse from the Bible that clearly and explicitly tells us that the Holy Spirit is “God”. You won’t find one. You are arguing from hindsight. The Church had already told you that the Holy Spirit is God before you even opened the Bible to see for yourself what you could not have been intentionally looking for.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Just exactly what does, He walked with God, and was no longer seen on earth, because God took him to Himself (Enoch); he was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot (Elijah), mean to you if not assumption?
As far as Moses, while the Bible speaks of God secretly burying Moses, since we see Moses and Elijah speaking to Jesus at the Transfiguration, it is a reasonable hypothesis that after God buried Moses, one of His greatest servants, He likewise ‘assumed’ Moses, not yet into heaven, but, as “The LAW”, to be with Elijah, “The PROPHETS”, until the time of that Transfiguration. Both Moses and Elijah had ‘glorified bodies’ like Jesus–but we know that heaven was not yet open. Therefore, both had to be in a place where they were ‘body and soul’ and yet not fully ‘with God’ in heaven.
As far as Moses, while the Bible speaks of God secretly burying Moses, since we see Moses and Elijah speaking to Jesus at the Transfiguration, it is a reasonable hypothesis that after God buried Moses, one of His greatest servants, He likewise ‘assumed’ Moses, not yet into heaven, but, as “The LAW”, to be with Elijah, “The PROPHETS”, until the time of that Transfiguration. Both Moses and Elijah had ‘glorified bodies’ like Jesus–but we know that heaven was not yet open. Therefore, both had to be in a place where they were ‘body and soul’ and yet not fully ‘with God’ in heaven.
K
kaycee
Guest
During this six-year period a large number of councils were held, in the course of which the Arian cause finally triumphed. The synod of Sirmium, held in 357, condemned the word ousios as being unscriptural and proscribed both the words homo- and homoiousios.Arius, a priest in Alexandria, began teaching his Trinitarian heresy around 310 A.D. and was probably one of the Church’s biggest sources of a migraine. At one point almost two-thirds of the bishops embraced Arianism, although the pope held firm against it. Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. which drew up the Nicene Creed as an expression of an orthodox Trinitarian faith. The Catholic Church did not teach Arianism. Arius did.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Constantine was baptized by an Arian.
the-highway.com/arian_Hanko2.html
K
kaycee
Guest
Offcourse, the BIBLE DOES. The Bible says nothing about Mary’s assumption.
The earliest time we hear about Mary’s assumption is from Gnostic sources that were condemned by Pope Gelasius in 490 AD.
A
agangbern
Guest
GoodFella answered you that “Arianism” today at 7:17AM.
K
kaycee
Guest
These “sources” were NOT Christian, They WERE Gnostic, and forgeries attributed to Melito and the Apostle John, created 500 years after the so called event! You don’t think that is a problem?
K
kaycee
Guest
I saw that, but the rest of the story was not discussed.
Arianism, made a huge comeback after Nicea and was dominant in the church around 357 after some Arian Councils.
Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop!
Athanasius was banished 5 times after Nicea.
Pope Liberius signed a pro Arian document.
Arianism was finally overcome around 381 AD.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
There is zero Biblical denial of it, as well.
Think about it - the Catholic Church is well known for its preservation of relics - bones of saints, etc… St Peter’s bones are in a known location. Given the high amount of veneration given to Mary by the faithful, why is it that nobody anywhere has any of her bones? Could it possibly be that her bones are nowhere to be found on this earth?
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
And we know it wasn’t overcome simply by proof-texting Scripture, since the canon was still 11 years from being finalized. Interesting…
K
kaycee
Guest
Yeah, the bible does’nt deny pink elephants either. So? Think about thatThere is zero Biblical denial of it, as well.
I believe veneration of relics is a practice that started closer to the year 1000the Catholic Church is well known for its preservation of relics - bones of saints, etc… St Peter’s bones are in a known location. Given the high amount of veneration given to Mary by the faithful, why is it that nobody anywhere has any of her bones? Could it possibly be that her bones are nowhere to be found on this earth?
G
Goth_Catholic
Guest
The bible says nothing about the trinity ethier. The bible does however say “Hold fast to the traditions you have been taught”
K
kaycee
Guest
Yeah, what traditions would Paul be talking about here?
G
Goth_Catholic
Guest
Doesn’t really matter. I think the rest of the quote is wether by word or letter of ours. Since Jesus gave Peter the right to bind or loosen, then whatever the chair of St. Peter declares is truth.
But of course you don’t belive that.
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven
sourse: Catholic Encyclopedia
This then corrasponds to rev. 12 where Mary is seen clothed in sun with the moon at her feet and the crown of twelve stars upon her head. But this arugment has been played to death and I should probably shut up right about now.
A
agangbern
Guest
Unfortunately, that temporary triumph prepared for the ruin of Arianism.
B
Bible_Student
Guest
Hi Bishopite,
QUOTE=Bishopite;2667249]
That Mary’s assumption isn’t found specifically in the earliest of times of the Catholic church prior to the fourth century isn’t a problem. The early church was first of all being pursecuted so it was very difficult to develop any Christian doctrine outside the starting point which is Christology as the early disputes were over who Jesus was in relation to the Father and Son, hence the word Trinity (homoousius) was born. Disputes about Mary weren’t even started until after Christianity was allowed as a legal religion.
However the “Place of Dormition” (which the Eastern Orthodox follow) and “The Tomb of Mary” both in Jerusalem one near Mt Sion both point to the earliest devotions to Mary’s assumption.
And it is interesting that no where does any early Christian leader or group write about where Mary is buried, being the early Chirstians honored the dead as the catecomes in Rome attest.
But what I do find very interesting is the position you take?
Certainly doctrinal issues and disputes over who Jesus was were very much in the early Church. Doctinal errors had obviously begun to creep in, adherence to the Judaic laws being on of them that St. Paul addressed - not necessarily a Christology issue. One could argue that John’s battle with the gnostics could have been argued from a Marian viewpoint as well but he did not. In fact John, who looked after Mary according to the Gospel makes no mention of her or the birth of our Lord, as does Luke and Matthew. The gnostics argued for the non physical nature of Jesus, beginning with the gnostics, who were actually quite prevelant - (this is almost the same present day position especially concerning the crucifixion of Islam). Even in the apostle John’s time, however, we find him warning the churches about doctrinal errors creeping in and which he address in his epistle as well as making that same statement from his Gospel - thoroughly from his viewpoint as a disciple.
John the Apostle:
In Christ, pat
I consider the early Church era to be the one which was in place before it became “politically correct” to be a Christian. And the one before whereby Church leaders became synomous with worldly political power.
QUOTE=Bishopite;2667249]
That Mary’s assumption isn’t found specifically in the earliest of times of the Catholic church prior to the fourth century isn’t a problem. The early church was first of all being pursecuted so it was very difficult to develop any Christian doctrine outside the starting point which is Christology as the early disputes were over who Jesus was in relation to the Father and Son, hence the word Trinity (homoousius) was born. Disputes about Mary weren’t even started until after Christianity was allowed as a legal religion.
However the “Place of Dormition” (which the Eastern Orthodox follow) and “The Tomb of Mary” both in Jerusalem one near Mt Sion both point to the earliest devotions to Mary’s assumption.
And it is interesting that no where does any early Christian leader or group write about where Mary is buried, being the early Chirstians honored the dead as the catecomes in Rome attest.
But what I do find very interesting is the position you take?
Certainly doctrinal issues and disputes over who Jesus was were very much in the early Church. Doctinal errors had obviously begun to creep in, adherence to the Judaic laws being on of them that St. Paul addressed - not necessarily a Christology issue. One could argue that John’s battle with the gnostics could have been argued from a Marian viewpoint as well but he did not. In fact John, who looked after Mary according to the Gospel makes no mention of her or the birth of our Lord, as does Luke and Matthew. The gnostics argued for the non physical nature of Jesus, beginning with the gnostics, who were actually quite prevelant - (this is almost the same present day position especially concerning the crucifixion of Islam). Even in the apostle John’s time, however, we find him warning the churches about doctrinal errors creeping in and which he address in his epistle as well as making that same statement from his Gospel - thoroughly from his viewpoint as a disciple.
John the Apostle:
There is also a early tradition that Mary’s tomb was located somewhere near Ephesus as well as Jerusalem (if they can’t decide on this how are we to understand that the assumption should be a slam dunk for us. It is not that God couldn’t have done this for her, for Peter, for Paul, for Silas and whoever else but there are just no early witnesses that would confirm it.
In Christ, pat
K
kaycee
Guest
Offcourse, if you believe in Sola Ecclesia, it only matters what the church tells you despite contradictory evidence.
And the source is Really the Dormition, Pseudo Apostle Paul, another Gnostic Forgery that parralells the condemned Gnostic Forgery Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo Melito.
The assumption is of Gnostic origin, not Christian.
2 Pet 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.
A
agangbern
Guest
No, it was not the Church that Christ built that you say at one time taught Arianism.The "church " also taught Arianism for a time.
- Status