CHALLENGING mary's assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter stompalot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon_S said:
The whole argument about Mary’s assumption being recorded in Scripture is mute…unless you can prove to us Catholics why it needs to be recorded in Scripture to believe it in the first place.
Click to expand...
y should i prove it? u guys are saying it. its like saying “prove that dogs can fly when people arent looking”. i think the LACK OF evidence is proof enough. the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
 
stompalot said:
WOW, I CANT BELIEVE HOW BADLY OUT OF CONTEXT THESE VERSES ARE.
firstly, Psalm 132:8 is not talking about mary, its in the old testament. 2 Cor. 12:2 Paul is talking about himself. Rev is still interpreted differently by bible scholars TODAY. even if Rev. 12:1 is about Mary, it dosent say she ascended. all the other verses are just far too random for me to even bother stating their irrelevance. you cant deny that the bible does NOT AT ALL mention Mary’s assumption, not even hint it.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why a particular verse being in the Old Testament automatically makes it irrelevant. What about the verses of the Old Testament that fortel the coming of the Messiah? Are those irrelevant, too?
 
stompalot said:
y should i prove it? u guys are saying it. its like saying “prove that dogs can fly when people arent looking”. i think the LACK OF evidence is proof enough. the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
Click to expand...
How so? You’re asking us to prove that something is true, and you’re only argument against it is that it is not recorded in Scripture.

Where does Scripture tell us that the only Christian truths must be explicit in the Bible? That burden rests on your shoulders because you are asking us to prove something from Scripture.

The point is that bodily assumption IS heard of in Scripture.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
What does your religion teacher say? Have you asked?
Click to expand...
she says “mary rose to heaven body and soul…”

i say “why”

she says “the catholic church teaches it”

i say “no other christians believe that, how can catholics say this”

she says “ummmm, i think its in the Bible”

i say “no, it isnt even MENTIONED in the bible”

then she has no idea.
 
stompalot said:
really, ive never heard of this. what church? since when?
if you are talking about the Catholic church then you should realise they are the only christians who teach this.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox also believe this.
 
Sr_Sally said:
This is such an amazing proof to me. We Catholics save everything! We have relics of knucklebones and St’s old hankies. There is a strong tradition about where Mary lived with John on Ephesis, but nothing about where she was buried and certainly no one has ever claimed to have her body. Amazing!
Click to expand...
i didnt know catholics existed around jesus’ life. afterall, there werent even denominations then, only one group of christians
 
ok, everyone seems to think that because mary was JCs mother he must have ressurected her. well, dosent god love us all, why does death occur? if god can do anything, y did jesus have to die? the answer: God is sooooo superios to us that we cannot begin to comprehend his complexity. for us to assume that “god loved mary therefore she was assumed” is limiting god as in saying we know how he operates. you cannot assume these thing!

also, mary’s suffering was minimal to ohters in the bible. most of the apostles were imprisoned, torchured, persecuted and killed because of their faith, john the baptist was beheaded, and Gods chosen people were in slavery. just because god loved these people you cannot say that they were assumed.
 
stompalot said:
ok, everyone seems to think that because mary was JCs mother he must have ressurected her. well, dosent god love us all, why does death occur? if god can do anything, y did jesus have to die? the answer: God is sooooo superios to us that we cannot begin to comprehend his complexity. for us to assume that “god loved mary therefore she was assumed” is limiting god as in saying we know how he operates. you cannot assume these thing!

also, mary’s suffering was minimal to ohters in the bible. most of the apostles were imprisoned, torchured, persecuted and killed because of their faith, john the baptist was beheaded, and Gods chosen people were in slavery. just because god loved these people you cannot say that they were assumed.
Click to expand...
None of them carried the Savior in their womb.
 
stompalot said:
i didnt know catholics existed around jesus’ life. afterall, there werent even denominations then, only one group of christians
Click to expand...
That’s right. The Catholic Church. Just because they didn’t call themselves Catholic at that time does not mean it’s not the same Church.
 
heisenburg said:
There are several key things to

Point 1) If she ‘died’ any later than say 70AD, all of the books save Revelations were already written. Why would someone write about the assumption of Mary if it hadn’t yet happened? This is VERY plausible because she would have been roughly 84. An age that is not unheard of, even in this era. Therefore, it would be Impossible for Mary’s Assumption to be in the bible, she left this earth AFTER all the books were written.

Point 4) The Bible Says that All Generations shall call her blessed. The Bible says the angel greeted Mary with “Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with thee, Blessed art though amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus”. The Bible says the Sarah greeted addressed Mary as the Mother of Her Lord. By this the Bible says Mary was Very very very very very special in Gods eyes.

Point 5) Wouldn’t the Lord look more favorably on ‘the mother of our lord’ than almost anyone else in all of history?

Point 6) If Mary did have such favor with the lord, as can be shown biblically, then if God Assumed other servants, wouldn’t he also assume the very Mother of Jesus?
Click to expand...
okay, these are your best points.
  1. the bible was roughly compiled in 300AD from the most well known and important books. so, dont u think that her assumption would have been mentioned? well, it isnt even hinted!
  2. ive never read this- and ive read alot of bible. what verse. and still, it is m,oer praising to JC than Mary
5)does this mean anything, JC suffered a terrible death and he was gods son
  1. you cant seriously base your argument on an assumption like this
 
stompalot said:
okay, these are your best points.
  1. the bible was roughly compiled in 300AD from the most well known and important books. so, dont u think that her assumption would have been mentioned? well, it isnt even hinted!
  2. ive never read this- and ive read alot of bible. what verse. and still, it is m,oer praising to JC than Mary
5)does this mean anything, JC suffered a terrible death and he was gods son
  1. you cant seriously base your argument on an assumption like this
Click to expand...
The fact that the Bible was compiled in 300 AD does not change the fact that the books were written long before that. The Church is not in the business of altering Scripture.
 
VociMike said:
Yeah, and not one bishop opposed it. Not one council taught against it. Not one pope spoke out against it. Even though the legend took a couple of hundred years (your own words) to be fully accepted into the Church, not once during those couple of hundred years did anybody say, “hey wait, this isn’t the faith handed down by the Apostles!”

And when you can explain how the Church absorbed a lie (legend, as you say) over a couple of hundred years without the slightest peep of protest, then we might view your own story here as more than a Protestant legend.

But not until then.
Click to expand...
so you know, there was protest. the catholic church was corrupt. knoone could read and people believed what they were told. thats how protestants formed-they broke away from the church.and also, ive never heard of this gospel. where can i read it? it seems insignificant to me.
 
Teflon93 said:
Catholics, unlike Protestants, make no claims that the Bible is the ONLY source of Christian knowledge.

For example, the Bible does not refer to the Trinity. The doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one in being, did not come about until the Council of Nicea (thus the Nicene Creed) in 325. If you say the Nicene Creed, or refer to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are embracing an extra-Biblical doctrine. Would you agree that this DOES NOT mean that you are not a Christian?
Click to expand...
stop using this example! ur like the 5th person. dont u get it, this is more a catholic teachiong as well (not that i disagree with it as it is mentioned in the bible, unlike the assumption)
 
stompalot said:
stop using this example! ur like the 5th person. dont u get it, this is more a catholic teachiong as well (not that i disagree with it as it is mentioned in the bible, unlike the assumption)
Click to expand...
The canon of the Bible is a Catholic teaching. Where does the Bible teach which books belong in the Bible?
 
Fidelis said:
Wrong again, Kaycee:We can assume from the above that the belief by Christians in Mary’s Assumption was older even than these quotes, since none of the writers purport to be introducing anything new. Also, along with this early witness, we hear of no protest among Christians to this doctrine until well after the beginning of the Deformation.
Click to expand...
okay. where can i see these. i want to gain the context behind them. but thanks, this is what i was asking for, “where do catholics base their beliefs”
 
Jon_S said:
The whole argument about Mary’s assumption being recorded in Scripture is mute…unless you can prove to us Catholics why it needs to be recorded in Scripture to believe it in the first place.
Click to expand...
y do u want me to prove it? im asking u. if u cant even explain y u believe in what u believe in then whats the point?
 
Jon_S said:
I’m not sure why a particular verse being in the Old Testament automatically makes it irrelevant. What about the verses of the Old Testament that fortel the coming of the Messiah? Are those irrelevant, too?
Click to expand...
y do u have to answer my question with another question, we will get no where.
its talking about an ark (that is a box thing with the commandments in it). ok? unlesss u quoted the wrong passage, please explain its relevance
 
Jon_S said:
How so? You’re asking us to prove that something is true, and you’re only argument against it is that it is not recorded in Scripture.

Where does Scripture tell us that the only Christian truths must be explicit in the Bible? That burden rests on your shoulders because you are asking us to prove something from Scripture.

The point is that bodily assumption IS heard of in Scripture.
Click to expand...
look. if someone randomly states something and they have no reason for their stataments, dont u think they ought to be the ones to explain? and plus its my post 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top