L
Lochias
Guest
May I ask why you’re not yet convinced? Pure curiosity on my part, not tryin’ to pry.
James White calls Called to Communion to the carpet on the Assumption of Mary
- Status
L
Lochias
Guest
Handsomely put, sir / ma’am. Handsomely put indeed.
R
robwar
Guest
Those examples of Enoch and Elijah are brought up to show that there is precedence for this happening in scripture. It is also implied for Moses since Moses went up on a mountain to “die” and was never seen again nor was his body ever found. Also Moses appeared with Elijah at the transfiguration which would have meant that he and Elijah were already glorified and in heaven. Mary’s grave is not with us. We still have the house in Turkey that she lived at with St. John and is even a holy site for Muslems as well. The earliest Christian writers after the apostles testify Mary was assumed into heaven as well as gave testimony that she was “ever virgin”. Now there is some differences of opinion as to where and if she passed away first before assumption but considering that she is the Mother of God, it really would very be doubtful her body would have been left on Earth here. Also in Revelation 12:1,2 where St. John describes in his vision of heaven a “women clothed with the sun” is describing Mary in heaven glorified with a “crown of 12 stars”.
This also implies that she would have been assumed into heaven to be in a glorified state.
Both Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Christians believe in Mary’s assumption. It was always been taught until the Protestant reformation. Unfortunately these explanations might not be “proof” enough for you but you have to ask yourself that if this was believed and taught in the first 1500 years of Christianity starting with the earliest writers then who is really wrong here? If you can’t trust the first Christian writers, who can you trust? Some protestant 1500 years later who thinks they know what happen and doesn’t believe in it because the assumption of Mary is “not directly talked about in scripture”?
D
dsully
Guest
Here is an example where I think Pacwa wins through patient explanation.
youtube.com/watch?v=GRpNTy0flgM&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3781AD69955CFCD4
youtube.com/watch?v=GRpNTy0flgM&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3781AD69955CFCD4
R
robwar
Guest
the assumption of Mary was the first dogma about Mary I believed in on my Journey in the Catholic faith. The first Christians always taught it, her grave is not with us, there is precedence for it with Elijah, Enoch and implied with Moses and it make all the sense in the world. It is the easiest to defend and believe.
God Bless
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
.
It’s not just Rome. The eastern churches not in communion with us believe that the Theotokos was assumed body and soul into heaven after she died as well. We even have the same feast day for it (August 15), despite being on sometimes very different calendars.
So the idea that this teaching isn’t ancient is nonsense.
I understand why you asked for a Scriptural citation for the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, since - as you clearly know - there is no verse that says, “the Lord’s Mother was assumed body and soul into heaven.” There are verses that hint at it, but none that explicitly and unequivocally state it, so I understand why you brought this up.
I cannot for the life of me, however, understand why you issue such a challenge concerning transubstantiation. The New Testament does explicitly and unequivocally establish that the Eucharist is the Lord’s Body and Blood, as do the early Church Fathers. Others on this thread have demonstrated it already. So, in terms of debating, I have no idea what leg you think you’ll stand on regarding that one.
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
Greetings in the Lord, Porknpie. Though I don’t speak for Dr. White I can unequivocally state that he does not adhere to “solo” scriptura.
Moreover those who claim sola scriptura is a natural consequence of Sola Scriptura is promoting a red herring and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
N
Nicea325
Guest
But here is where the issue lies, who has the correct definition and understanding of SS? A Lutheran will tell you SS is NOT a doctrine,moreover,but merely an applied principle.
Precisely why SS causes confusion and not unity.
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
No, I’m not comparing him to Jesus, just simply pointing out that he and all who suffer personal attacks for the sake of the Gospel are in good company.
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you." John 15:18
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
I can’t answer this as I’m not a Protestant but I can assure you my faith is Christocentric as it is centered and built upon “The faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Arizona Samson, I personally feel that you’ve encountered some uncharitable triumphalism from some of my fellow Catholics in this thread. For that I wish to apologize. I admire that you’re able to take smug responses and endure them without complaint, as Christ did before those who made Him suffer so.
That said, I do think you should seriously consider that your approach to these issues is flawed. You say, for instance, that you’re not a Protestant, yet you seem adhere to Sola Scriptura, a Protestant teaching that has its origins in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Your own church - whatever it is - was most likely founded at some point by Protestants. You can say you’re not a Protestant, but every Christian owes his or her theological understandings and methodology to certain ways of thinking that came to them from various historical groups of Christians. It only makes sense that these ways of thinking have names that reflect their systems and their origin. It does you no good to pretend that you just popped into the twenty-first century from some first-century early Christian community. You didn’t. None of us did.
In light of all this, does it really make sense to you to reject notions unanimously attested to by the Tradition of the Christian Church? Don’t forget that the canon of the Bible wasn’t really determined until the fourth century - the fourth century! The New Testament as we have it may not explicitly and unmistakably establish the Assumption of Mary, but do you really think, in light of how ancient a belief it is, that those who compiled, discerned the canon of, and transcribed the Bible, did not believe such a thing when it is part of the Church’s ancient Teachings?
… and this is to say nothing of your claim about “transubstantiation.” As shown in this very thread, eating and drinking the Flesh and the Blood of our Savior is very much in the Bible, and the early Church certainly believed it. Why do you think your communities, armed with the Bibles these early Christians essentially gave you, have the credibility to challenge what was universally handed on to them, and to us?
I hopefully and respectfully await your response.
In Christ,
Fone Bone
N
Nicea325
Guest
I am sorry,but I am curious to know what Gospel Mr.White is defending? You find his personal attacks on Catholicism worthy of your biblical verse?
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
An alleged assumption of Moses has absolutely nothing to do with an alleged assumption of Mary. Addtionally to make such an argument is to make an argument from silence, something I don’t subscribe to.
Moreover Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhart, Glenn Miller, and D.B. Cooper were never seen again and their bodies never found. Using your polemic couldn’t we “assume” that their bodies were also assumed into heaven?
N
Nicea325
Guest
And do you subscribe to the thousands of different denominations founded by men with no such authority? That is based on silence,so why do subcribe to it?
Sorry,but using Jimmy Hoffa and comparing it to Moses is rather weak. Moses was not a mob gangster.
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
Greetings cajunhillbilly, it’s good to “see” you again. I pray all is well with you and yours.
As someone who’s interacted with you in the past in other forums I won’t be in the least bit surprised if you eventually embrace this doctrine.
You may have yet to swim the Tiber but you’ve definitely been practicing your backstroke.
F
FatherOfTwelve
Guest
Re: James White calls Called to Communion to the carpet on the Assumption of Mary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Samson
Great. While we’re at it let’s examine the modern day Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in light of both what the Bible teaches and what the early church taught for the first 900+ years following the Last Supper.
Gladly, Justin Martyr First Apology Apology 150AD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Martyr, First Apoloy Chapter 66 c150AD
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
There are more, but St Justin Martyr is very early and is quoted as an authority on orthodox Christian teachings in the second century and he is clearly displaying a belief in transubstantiation (even if it is not called that yet).
I’m waiting for “Samson’s Reply”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Samson
Great. While we’re at it let’s examine the modern day Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in light of both what the Bible teaches and what the early church taught for the first 900+ years following the Last Supper.
Gladly, Justin Martyr First Apology Apology 150AD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Martyr, First Apoloy Chapter 66 c150AD
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
There are more, but St Justin Martyr is very early and is quoted as an authority on orthodox Christian teachings in the second century and he is clearly displaying a belief in transubstantiation (even if it is not called that yet).
I’m waiting for “Samson’s Reply”
C
Chafer_DTS
Guest
It only proves it happend to only those individuals. It provides no proof of it happening to the virgin Mary. This is like me claiming I have a cell phone and only showing other people with cell phones in their hands as proof of me having a cell phone. Hope you see what I am saying.
His remains are buried. He physically died as Joshua 1:1 tells us. The death is Moses is specifically recorded for us in Deu 34. God made sure no know where Moses was buried specifically. Just because his body was never found does not mean that he was physically resurrected and taken to heaven. We are never told of this at all. Thus is provides no proof for the assumption of Mary either.
I hold that Moses went to heaven in his spirit when he died. We have no record at all of him being resurrected and taken to heaven in his body. We do have the specific record of Elijah the Prophet being taken physically to heaven while alive. Again this only proves his own individual experience and not that of the virgin Mary. His experience is only a type of what shall happen to living Christians at the time of Jesus coming for His church as taught in 1 Thes 4:13-18. This text shows that individuals all Christians which would include the virgin Mary will be taken to heaven at the same time with all other Christians physically.
We dont know where her grave is at nor do we need to know. We likewise dont know where the grave of Adam and Eve are and yet you dont claim that they were taken physically to heaven either. Please use reasonable logic here.
That is not true. We dont see it in men like Clement of Rome, Papias, Justin Martyr and others.It is much later on we find it’s way. The assumption of Mary and her being the " ever virgin " are beliefs first found in Gnostic writings and not in orthodox church fathers until over 200 or so years after the times of the apostles. It is over 1800 years later we find it being made a dogmatically held " DOCTRINE " to be believed by the Roman Church. Prior to that people were allowed to disagree with it and not be excommunicated over it.
The virgin Mary being the Mother of God does not in itself mean she is to be physically taken away to heaven physically before the christian church as a whole is to . The assumption is Mary doctrine contradicts 1 Thes 4:13-18 since it makes this a full physical taken away of Christians to heaven. Remember this takes place on " the last day " for the church.
That is a modern Roman Catholic reading of that passage. That is not the position of most of the church fathers. The most consistant view of the " woman " of Revelation 12 is that it represents the church or the people of God. This was the position of Saint Augustine. You really need to read the church fathers .
The RCC view of Rev 12 is rejected by me as not being exegetically based at all. What I see is forcing a modern outside belief and forcing it in to the text of Scripture without any basis from the text itself.
That is a claim that can not be proven at all. You wont find the doctrine of the assumption in christian writings until much later in church history. You cant show me it in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd cen. at all in the church father writings. You lack proof of it being an apostolic belief. It is to be noted that ONLY Roman Catholic has it as a dogmatically held doctrine to be held by it’s members. While Orthodox and Coptics hold to it they do not made it a dogmatic doctrine of the faith like the RCC does. You basically are being misleading there.
I was not provided any specific evidence for the assumption of Mary. You only showed cases of which it happend to a few people and YET NONE OF THE VIRGIN MARY. Yet you expect me to believe something when no factual reasonable evidence has been shown to me ? It can honestly say the assumption is Mary is not an apostolic belief. None of the most earliest church fathers taught it or even stated anything about it. We first find it in gnostic writings. I do not know about you but Gnostics are not Christians. It is your claims that are wrong and very much overstated. I am not impressed by the arguments presented by those here. It basically amounts to saying I have a cell phone and only showing pictures of other people holding cell phones in their hands as evidence of me having a cell phone.
The thing is none of the first Christian writers taught this. Even then it would not make it true. For example Irenaeus taught Jesus died at 56 years old and used John 8 as his proof text and even claimed this was passed on as apostolic tradition yet itis not true at all.
The early church fathers did not know of the assumption of Mary at all either. Your " Protestant " slur does not work with me at all. I was not born or raised up in Protestantism and is therefore irrelevent to me. What you have done is placed your church leaders above that of Scripture functionally speaking. Do not blame Protestants when they demand biblical evidence for the assumption of Mary when none are provided for to show us Mary was taken to heaven. My argument againist the assumption of Mary is very simple. Christians are to be physically taken away to heaven at the same time as 1 Thes 4:13-18 teaches. This takes place on " the last day " for the church. Let’s not also forget it is absent in the most early church father writings too.
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
If your ad hominem attack on Dr. White’s scholarship is true doesn’t it stand to reason it should be a walk in the park for Called to Communion to soundly defeat him in the prosposed debate?
If so, why not accept his challenge, soundly refute him, and send him scurring for cover to never be heard from again?
Dr. White has offered to debate ten people by himself. Why doesn’t Called to Communion assemble ten of the most erudite and brightest minds from an infallible church so they can finally put an infidel with a doctorate from a diploma mill out of his misery?
F
FatherOfTwelve
Guest
Originally Posted by Arizona Samson
Great. While we’re at it let’s examine the modern day Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in light of both what the Bible teaches and what the early church taught for the first 900+ years following the Last Supper.
Gladly, Justin Martyr First Apology Apology 150AD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Martyr, First Apoloy Chapter 66 c150AD
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
There are more, but St Justin Martyr is very early and is quoted as an authority on orthodox Christian teachings in the second century and he is clearly displaying a belief in transubstantiation (even if it is not called that yet).
Are you going to respond to this reply? Just curious:shrug:
C
Chafer_DTS
Guest
The burden of proof lies on the RCC to show the assumption of Mary. It has to make a positive case for it’s position. It is a very bad thing when it tries to shift the burden of proof to another. Basically using the universal negavative fallacy for an argument. We lack evidence in the most early church fathers on the assumption of Mary. If this doctrine was held we would find this in the most early writings yet we do not. I saw no proof of it.
We dont have the remains of Peter and Paul either. Mary is equally positionally with all other Christians in the eyes of God. Mary like all Christians have the same spiritual blessings as Paul taught in Eph. 1:3. All Christians are viewed positionally equally in the eyes of God. Mary has no special blessings that other believers do not have. Mary merely gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ and was therefore the GodBearer. That is what makes her blessed.
I saw it and looked puzzled at the total lack of biblical and historical evidence in it. Makes me wonder how in the world someone can believe the bad arguments that it used.
- Status