Immaculate Conception and assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter misslollipops
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do YOU know God ‘did not?’
Seriously. How do you KNOW, for an absolute, God-breathed, FACT, that the Catholic Church’s position here is false?
 
misslollipops said:
Luke 14:26 (King James Version)

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Click to expand...
How does this verse have meaning for you?
D.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
How do YOU know God ‘did not?’
Seriously. How do you KNOW, for an absolute, God-breathed, FACT, that the Catholic Church’s position here is false?
Click to expand...
You are making the claim it happened and bear the burden of proof. Now, how do you know He did do it?

If you cannot produce the evidence-proof that it did happen then you are specualating and speculations are not truths or facts but more like myths.
 
justasking4 said:
If you don’t have some documentation for this you don’t have any facts to support it. Without that you have speculations.
Click to expand...
What the Church has believed since the beginning is hardly speculation. And besides, it is clear that no documentation will actually satisfy you, because these doctrines go against your traditions of men. Heck, not even the scriptures satisfy you when they go against your traditions of men. So believe or don’t believe, but don’t pretend that if we could just provide some documentation before year X that you’d believe these doctrines. Fact is, you’ll never believe them as long as you hold to your tradtions of men developed more than 1500 years after the fact.
 
justasking4 said:
I’m still confused. Asking for historical documentation is a valid request.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Yet many when provided with it do not admit any error on their part but just show surpise that the Church “fell into error” so soon.

We will freely admit that there is no historical documentation for these in the first few hundred years, yet since the Church was still formulating the doctrines as basic as the Trinity, this should not be surprising.

Scripture tells us we will be led to all truth, not given all at once.

No new revelation but further understanding of that which has been revealed. These doctrines are examples of that.

God Bless,
Maria
 
VociMike;2811385]What the Church has believed since the beginning is hardly speculation.
Click to expand...
How do you know what the early church believed during this period if you don’t have any documentation for it?
And besides, it is clear that no documentation will actually satisfy you, because these doctrines go against your traditions of men.
Click to expand...
If someone claimed to know something that happened 300 years but had no evidence for it would you believe it?
Heck, not even the scriptures satisfy you when they go against your traditions of men.
Click to expand...
What do you do when a teaching or tradition goes against the scriptures?
So believe or don’t believe, but don’t pretend that if we could just provide some documentation before year X that you’d believe these doctrines. Fact is, you’ll never believe them as long as you hold to your tradtions of men developed more than 1500 years after the fact.
Click to expand...
You make assumption about me that you don’t know. It seems to me that when many catholics are challenged to look at the foundations of the marian doctrines that they take great offense at me for this. In a sense i can understand this but in another i’m suprised that they believe as they do because i don’t think that in most cases they would in other areas of their lives accept these things on the basis that the catholic church offers.
 
justasking4 said:
How do you know what the early church believed during this period if you don’t have any documentation for it?

If someone claimed to know something that happened 300 years but had no evidence for it would you believe it?
Click to expand...
Yes, if when the belief first surface in the surviving written record, nobody denied it. That is the overriding reality that you have steadfastly refused to address. The Church never declared these beliefs to be false or heretical. Not in 377 or 477 or 577 or 677 or - well, you get the idea. That can only mean that the Church has always believed them. If you claim otherwise you must explain this complete lack of objection on the part of the Church. But you can’t explain it, so you just continue to ignore it.
What do you do when a teaching or tradition goes against the scriptures?
Click to expand...
As interpreted by whom? You?
You make assumption about me that you don’t know. It seems to me that when many catholics are challenged to look at the foundations of the marian doctrines that they take great offense at me for this. In a sense i can understand this but in another i’m suprised that they believe as they do because i don’t think that in most cases they would in other areas of their lives accept these things on the basis that the catholic church offers.
Click to expand...
I take absolutely no offense. It is tiring, I’ll admit, to hear the same claims against the ancient faith made by upstart (and often anti-Catholic) Protestant traditions who sound more like atheists when they come demanding “documentation”, as though faith is built on documentation.
 
MariaG said:
Yes it is. Yet many when provided with it do not admit any error on their part but just show surpise that the Church “fell into error” so soon.

We will freely admit that there is no historical documentation for these in the first few hundred years, yet since the Church was still formulating the doctrines as basic as the Trinity, this should not be surprising.

Scripture tells us we will be led to all truth, not given all at once.

No new revelation but further understanding of that which has been revealed. These doctrines are examples of that.

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
Darn, Too late to edit my mistake:o .

I will freely admit that I know of no historical doctrinal writings before the 300’s although as already pointed out there were prayers and poetry type writings that do reveal that these beliefs were already present.

But EVEN IF there was nothing at all, I believe scripture that tells us that we will be led to all truth.* I* believe these doctrines reflect this.

God Bless,
Maria
 
VociMike;2811576]Yes, if when the belief first surface in the surviving written record, nobody denied it. That is the overriding reality that you have steadfastly refused to address. The Church never declared these beliefs to be false or heretical. Not in 377 or 477 or 577 or 677 or - well, you get the idea. That can only mean that the Church has always believed them. If you claim otherwise you must explain this complete lack of objection on the part of the Church. But you can’t explain it, so you just continue to ignore it.
Click to expand...
How do i explain something away if there is no evidence that the church believed it to begin with? Just because no one denied it in this period doesn’t mean it was believed by all. Remember its you who is making the claim that this was always believed. Right? If so, its up to you to show with documentary evidence this was the case.
As interpreted by whom? You?
Click to expand...
You. What do you do? How do you deal with it?
I take absolutely no offense. It is tiring, I’ll admit, to hear the same claims against the ancient faith made by upstart (and often anti-Catholic) Protestant traditions who sound more like atheists when they come demanding “documentation”, as though faith is built on documentation.
Click to expand...
Biblical faith is based and grounded on the evidence and good reason. We are to reject those things that we have no good reason to believe or are counter to the scriptures. Such is the case with the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.
 
justasking4 said:
How do i explain something away if there is no evidence that the church believed it to begin with? Just because no one denied it in this period doesn’t mean it was believed by all. Remember its you who is making the claim that this was always believed. Right? If so, its up to you to show with documentary evidence this was the case.
Click to expand...
You’re determined to avoid the giant hole in your argument. Either explain why the Church never, ever denied these doctrines, or admit that the Church has never denied them - that is, that it has always believed them. Until you do that I’m not going to keep going over the same ground with you. You’ve had your questions answered many times, now answer mine.
You. What do you do? How do you deal with it?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t happen, that’s how I deal with it.
Biblical faith is based and grounded on the evidence and good reason. We are to reject those things that we have no good reason to believe or are counter to the scriptures. Such is the case with the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.
Click to expand...
The evidence is what the Church has always believed. That’s the best of all reasons. This goes far, far beyond “documentation”. And your claim that these doctrines are counter to scripture is just your own latecoming tradition of men speaking. It’s a claim without any meat whatsoever.
 
justasking4 said:
I ask again. Where is it mentioned specifically in scripture?
Click to expand...
From Scripture Catholic

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.
1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.
1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.
Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.
Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.
Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.
Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.
Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.
Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.
Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.
Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.
Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.
Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.
 
MariaG;2811657]
Click to expand...
1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that God did not dwell in the ark itself but remained over the Ark, in between the two Cherubim?
 
justasking4 said:
Just because no one denied it in this period doesn’t mean it was believed by all.
Click to expand...
This does not reflect the Early Church at all. We can see in the writings of the Early Church that anytime anything that was brought up that was a false teaching, there was a tremendous amount of literture written to refute it.

Respectfully, to think that no one denying it means not everyone believed it, shows a lack of knowledge of the Early Church.
 
MariaG said:
This does not reflect the Early Church at all. We can see in the writings of the Early Church that anytime anything that was brought up that was a false teaching, there was a tremendous amount of literture written to refute it.

Respectfully, to think that no one denying it means not everyone believed it, shows a lack of knowledge of the Early Church.
Click to expand...
What writings in the 2nd century show that the church thought of Mary as being without sin, assumed into heaven or queen of heaven?
 
MariaG said:
And what did the Ark carry?
Click to expand...
Various items like Aron rod, jar of manna and the tablets. There could have been other things to. The important thing is that God did not dwell inside it.
 
misslollipops said:
This is what you base Mary’s assumption on?
Click to expand...
To understand what I mean see my post in the thread ‘Did Our Blessed Mother Die?’ The Fourth Commandment is the Word of God. Mary was spared the “curse of Eve” (Gen 3:16,19).

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
justasking4 said:
Various items like Aron rod, jar of manna and the tablets. There could have been other things to. The important thing is that God did not dwell inside it.
Click to expand...
The Ark Carried the word of God.

Mary carried the Word.

In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jonn 1:1

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the word carried in the Ark of the Old Covenant was God. But we see in the Old Testament a foreshadowing of the New.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top