If not Catholic, Why are you on this forum?

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

My understanding is that all other assumptions are found in the Bible

So where in the Bible does it say that all assumptions are recorded in the Bible?

and since, i believe Catholic tradition had Mary, no longer around by 50 or so AD, I think, most of the NT was written after this. If people were assumed, I think logically someone would have said something.

The church has no official date of her assumption. 50 A.D. is surely wrong though (although catholics have speculated).

Most scholars I’ve seen suggest Mary was about 14 or 15 years old when Jesus was born. He was crucified and resurrected at about 30 years of age in 33 A.D. by our calendar. So in 33 A.D. Mary is about 48. Let’s say she lives to 80 (why wouldn’t God grant her a full life?). If she lives that long, she lives until 68 A.D.

Most of the New Testament was written by about 65 A.D. The exceptions are 1,2, 3 John, Revelation and the gospels. The Gospels were about Jesus, not Mary. They don’t list any events after Jesus ascended so we shouldn’t expect to find her assumption there. Revelation is a prophetic book so I wouldn’t expect to find it there either (it is about the future, not the past or present). That leaves us with the epistles of John.

These epistles were written sometime from the 80’s to the 90’s. By my count that is somewhere between 20 to 30 years after the assumption, not exactly a news flash.

Now admittedly that is speculation on my part (but I believe it is logical). There is also another reason none of the epistles say it. We don’t have all the writings of the first Christians. Paul talks in 1 Corinthians 5:9 about having previously written to that church. 1 Corinthians is NOT the first letter from Paul to the Corinthians. This is why sacred Tradition is important. The Bible is not an exhaustive resource. It tells us so itself.

A further point, there is little note of what happened to many of the apostles. Most of them surely died before the bible was completed. Again this tells us that the Bible is not an exhaustive history of the apostolic age.

 

[Fredricks]

That is A LOT of speculation friend. It would be the second greatest story of the century but no one says anything about it. Hey, you guys cannot blame me on this. I am not saying it could not have happened but how can you expect a Protestant to believe this if it is not found in the Bible or a bunch of people writing about it shortly after it happened??
I have no problem with it. 'Do you guys see that? I am just saying I am not about to believe something that the Bible does not teach or someone mentions after the fact. Not 300 years after the fact!
Sure God could have done that.
Sure he has done it in the past.
BUT how can you expect me to believe something that no one writes about until, 300 years later??
This would have been huge! His blessed Mother gone!?!
No disrespect on Mary guys. Sincerely. Just trying to be clear about what we think. I always get uptight talking about this because this cuts to the core of your belief system and it always ends bad based upon personal experience.

 

[JaneFrances]

How can something be heretical that is not in the Bible?

Perhaps a clear definition of heresy would help here.

Pronunciation: 'her-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Old French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

just curious, what happened to the Ark?

Hint: Get a bigger Bible–it should have about seven more books to be exact, one of them is 2 Maccabees. . .then, flip to the back of the Bible, Revelation Chapters 11 and 12 should help.

This just starts an infinite regression, Mary had to be without sin, but not her Mom? Why Mary and not her Mom(Anna to you guys)

No, Fred. . .It’s not an infinite regression. . .It’s a Divine initiative.

For the record, God doesn’t HAVE to do anything.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, did not HAVE to die on a cross. Even just one drop of his precious Blood would have been enough to save the whole human race. Jesus didn’t HAVE to be born of a woman. He could have just appeared in a basket on Mary and Joseph’s front step. And the Blessed Mother didn’t HAVE to be without sin. The teaching of the Church about the Immaculate Conception isn’t hindered by imperative modern Biblical interpretation, it’s about Divine prerogative. Our Lord God, from all eternity, CHOSE to create his Mother as a perfect vessel. Our Lord God, from all eternity, CHOSE to be born of a virgin. Our Lord God, from all eternity, CHOSE to die nailed to a cross for the salvation of our souls.

He chose these things not becuase he HAD to, but because he is perfect and he perfectly knew, from all eternity, the very things that would draw us to Himself.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

We usually just quote the verses and let them stand on there own.
I am not sure what you want me to explain exactly.

But quoting the Bible is not enough to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible does not define the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three in one nor does it explain God’s nature.

www.churchyear.net/trinitysunday.html

The Trinity is best described in the Nicene Creed. Essentially the Trinity is the belief that God is one in essence (Greek ousia), but distinct in person (Greek hypostasis). The Greek word for person means “that which stands on its own,” and does not mean the persons of the Trinity are three human persons. Therefore we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are somehow distinct from one another (not divided though), yet completely united in will and essence.

The Son is said to be eternally begotten of the Father, while the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father through the Son. Each member of the Trinity interpenetrates one another, and each has distinct roles in creation and redemption, which is called the Divine economy. For instance, God the Father created the world through the Son and the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters at creation.
The Nicene definition of the Trinity developed over time, based on Scripture and Tradition. The Scriptures call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit “God,” yet the three are also clearly distinct. For instance, St. John gives Jesus the titles theos and monogenes theos (God and Only-Begotten God) and has Jesus saying that the Father and Son are one, yet in his gospel Jesus also states that the Father and Son are not one witness, but two (John 1:1, 18; 8:17-18; 10:30). So John tells us that Jesus is God but not God the Father? Jesus is one with the Father, but they constitute two witnesses? It is scriptures such as these that led to the development of the Trinity doctrine. The Church had to reconcile the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit with Jewish monotheism. Over time, the Church reflected on the implications of God’s nature, and even began using the word Trinity by the middle of the 2nd century to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit. When in the 4th century a presbyter named Arius denied the Father and Son were both true God and co-eternal, his bishop Alexander of Alexandria challenged him and deposed him. Eventually the Arian controversy spread, and the emperor Constantine, newly fascinated with Christianity, convened a council of bishops in AD 325 in Nicaea to deal with Arianism. It is there that the Church drew up the beginnings of the current Nicene Creed. In the latter half of the 4th century the Church dealt with those who specifically denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, adding more text to the creed.

Ultimately, Trinitarianism posits a dynamic God, whose ultimate nature is beyond human conception, yet who voluntarily operates within the created world. Trinitarianism also shows a loving God that is willing to become as we are so that we may become like Him. The implications of believing in Arius’ God, a God unwilling to involve himself in our redemption, but who instead sent an angel of the highest order, did not escape the earliest Christians. As St. Athanasius was fond of saying “that which has not been assumed has not been redeemed,” meaning that unless God truly became completely human, we could not be fully redeemed, because only God Himself is capable of truly redeeming humanity; an angel does not have this ability. Thus, the Trinity is not about Greek philosophy or pointless metaphysical speculation, but about the heart of our salvation.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

That is A LOT of speculation friend.

It is for a Protestant because you do not have Tradition. It is not speculation for me. How do you reconcile the fact that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches conflict with Protestantism on this?

 

[Fredricks]

QUOTE=Eden]But quoting the Bible is not enough to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible does not define the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three in one nor does it explain God’s nature.

Good enough for me. If you have some evidence that Christ explained it further, please share.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

It is for a Protestant because you do not have Tradition. It is not speculation for me. How do you reconcile the fact that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches conflict with Protestantism on this?

I am referring to the dating of the Assumption by Semper. That was speculative. So what you are telling me is that we know the dates for just about every major event occuring in this era as it relates to Christianity within 5 years or so, but not this. Why?

The answer to your question is

how do you reconcile that Orthodox and Protestants agree on the Papacy not being the head of the church and you do not?
Not really, Catholics and Orthodox believe in Sacred Tradition. We do not.

 

[JaneFrances]

Hey, you guys cannot blame me on this. I am not saying it could not have happened but how can you expect a Protestant to believe this if it is not found in the Bible or a bunch of people writing about it shortly after it happened??

WOW. . .all it takes is a Bible reference and “a bunch of people writing about it shortly after it happend”?!!! This is HUGE.

I’ll see you in RCIA before you know it!

One word: Eucharist. Okay. . .I’ll make it two: Real Presence.

BUT how can you expect me to believe something that no one writes about until, 300 years later??

But, I thought you DID accept the New Testament Canon?

I always get uptight talking about this because this cuts to the core of your belief system and it always ends bad based upon personal experience.

I can not let it go being unsaid. . .The CORE of the Catholic “belief system” is Jesus Christ. The Blessed Mother always points us there and in doing so, she MAGNIFIES the Lord for us always!

Do not get uptight, Fred. Say a Hail Mary and breathe deeply. She’ll help.

 

[Fredricks]

Hint: Get a bigger Bible–it should have about seven more books to be exact, one of them is 2 Maccabees.

.
do not hint, throw a quote

No, Fred. . .It’s not an infinite regression. . .It’s a Divine initiative.

For the record, God doesn’t HAVE to do anything.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, did not HAVE to die on a cross. Even just one drop of his precious Blood would have been enough to save the whole human race. Jesus didn’t HAVE to be born of a woman. He could have just appeared in a basket on Mary and Joseph’s front step. And the Blessed Mother didn’t HAVE to be without sin. The teaching of the Church about the Immaculate Conception isn’t hindered by imperative modern Biblical interpretation, it’s about Divine prerogative. Our Lord God, from all eternity, CHOSE to create his Mother as a perfect vessel. Our Lord God, from all eternity, CHOSE to be born of a virgin. Our Lord God, from all eternity, CHOSE to die nailed to a cross for the salvation of our souls.

He chose these things not becuase he HAD to, but because he is perfect and he perfectly knew, from all eternity, the very things that would draw us to Himself.

I agree with the chose part. Just like I say that Catholics use personal interpretation to choose Catholicism. Everything goes back to choosing, we agree. Still, you did not really provide any proof, seems like someone would have said something about it. Matthew and Luke sure do not skimp on too many details about the Virgin Birth.
Regardless, you cannot expect a Protestant to believe this without biblical or historical support. Why am I arguing Mary with Catholics? I will stop.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Good enough for me.

Sometimes “good enough for me” isn’t good enough at all.

The Jews thought the Law was good enough. . .God thought otherwise.

 

[Fredricks]

Eucharist is in the Bible. You guys just do not do what it says. Early on, it was a meal, that is the way it was set up. Eucharist is a later development that cannot be traced to the Apostles.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

.
do not hint, throw a quote

I’ll do better than that. . .

Go salvationhistory.com/online/intermediate/course2_lesson3.cfm

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

That is A LOT of speculation friend.

Yes, but speculation is not always wrong. As I said, it is based on logic. If you disagree, I would like to know where you think I went wrong as logical consistency is important to me.

It would be the second greatest story of the century but no one says anything about it. Hey, you guys cannot blame me on this. I am not saying it could not have happened but how can you expect a Protestant to believe this if it is not found in the Bible or a bunch of people writing about it shortly after it happened??

I don’t expect Protestants who don’t acknowledge the incompleteness of the Bible to believe it. But that is why I provide evidence from the Bible that tells us it is incomplete. When protestants realize this, it is only a short journey to the catholic church. At least it was in my experience.

I’m sure you’ve also heard what I consider to be the biggest evidence for the assumption - the lack of remains. When you put it in context of the time, that evidence becomes overwhelming. Relics where of immense importance to the early Christians. Look at the catacombs. There are pieces of the apostles all over the Europe and the middle east (or at least what is claimed to be their relics). That shows the importance of relics yet there are no writing that ever talk about her remains.

Don’t worry, I won’t get angry about you not believing it. I expect you not to as a protestant. But when you realize that Bible isn’t exhaustive, you will begin to wonder…

 

[Fredricks]

Good night
nyfolklore.org/pubs/voic30-1-2/madonna.html

No disrespect.
We have a picture in our foyer.

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks you quoted:

I John 5:7
“For there are three bearing witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”

I haven’t read through the thread yet but this caught my eye. Why do you quote the Johannine comma? Secondly why is it in your bible at all?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Tonks40]

Fredricks:

Eucharist is in the Bible. You guys just do not do what it says. Early on, it was a meal, that is the way it was set up. Eucharist is a later development that cannot be traced to the Apostles.

Christ, holding up the bread, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY”…

…and holding up the cup saying, “THIS IS MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENENT…”

(found in 3 of the 4 Gospels - and in John, He really expounds on this…)

This has been going over and over in my mind lately…if He says it, it must be true! Doubt if the Apostles and their disciples misunderstood this…

God Bless!

 

[Nicene]

Tonks40:

Christ, holding up the bread, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY”…

…and holding up the cup saying, “THIS IS MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENENT…”

(found in 3 of the 4 Gospels - and in John, He really expounds on this…)

This has been going over and over in my mind lately…if He says it, it must be true! Doubt if the Apostles and their disciples misunderstood this…

God Bless!

Actually it’s kind of interesting. Many protestants accuse catholics of not taking the bible literally, yet in the most literal passages of the bible are the very ones they can’t accept.

Baptism (saves you, not as a washing of dirt)
Eucharist (real presence)
Whatever sins you forgive…(reconcilliation and forgiveness)
You are Peter and upon this rock…(foundation of the church)
James 5:14-15: Is any among you sick?..(Extreme unction)

The most literal parts of the bible, are unacceptable as literal.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Eucharist is in the Bible.

What’da ya know? The Eucharist IS in the Bible!!! WHEW, I’m so glad you can read Greek.

You guys just do not do what it says.

Let’s see what it says. . .

St. Paul speaks so clearly about the Real Presence in his first letter to the people at Corinth. He is teaching them to discern the difference between pagan sacrifices and the Eucharist. He says: **“Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). ** He goes on the express his concern for the Gentiles sharing at the Lord’s table in the Eucharist and partaking of the sacrifices made to idols. In this whole chapter, St. Paul is instructing the Gentile converts to the New Israel, the Church, to be on guard in their spiritual gifts that they would avoid temptations. He cites the Eucharist, “the cup of blessing” and the “bread that we break” as special signs of Christian unity and God’s blessing.

St. Paul then goes on to explain further: “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. . .He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29). There is no symbolic language here. St. Paul teaches that we are to “recognize” the Body of the Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Early on, it was a meal, that is the way it was set up.

I think this deserves a new thread all to its very own, Fred.

Early on, it was a meal. Later it was a meal. Today it is a meal. We simply recognize at Whose table we sit and Whose Body and Blood we are consuming.

Eucharist is a later development that cannot be traced to the Apostles

Hmmm. . .I’d say St. Ignatius is pretty darned close.

How 'bout:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I** desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible**.”

OR this

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. For love they have no care, nor for the widow, nor for the orphans, nor for the distressed, nor for those in prison or freed from prison, nor for the hungry and thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

OR even this

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as your would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. **Let that be considered a valid Eucharist ** which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.”

I think all that falls well into the Fredricks approved time frame (50 CE to 200 CE) of what would constitute legit Tradition, right?

 

[JaneFrances]

Nicene:

Fredricks you quoted:

I haven’t read through the thread yet but this caught my eye. Why do you quote the Johannine comma? Secondly why is it in your bible at all?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Great point!

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Good night
nyfolklore.org/pubs/voic30-1-2/madonna.html

No disrespect.
We have a picture in our foyer.

Why is the original “Black Madonna” black? Soot and residue from candles.

www.marypages.com/Czestochowa.htm