Marian Dogmas and the Bible

[bengal_fan]

I am suggesting no such thing. Quite the opposite!

My position was that the original poster would do much better by explainging *why *these dogma exist, using Scripture, Tradition (not tradition), and logic.

okay, just checking!!

 

[bengal_fan]

And here, Bengal_Fan, you and I come into agreement. I have an issue with the Assumption of Mary being defined as dogma. Of course it’s possible. God can do all things. But going back to my previous post, I cannot puzzle it out from Scripture nor Tradition of the Early Church. So it bugs me.

i completely understand. i would say that there is some evidence in the early church but moreso in the eastern orthodox traditions regarding the assumption (or the Dormition).

one of the problems i have (and i know it’s thrown out a lot but it’s still a problem for me) is the quote by Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 where he basically says no one knows of the eventual fate of Mary. it just shows me that even as early as that, there was debate on this amongst the orthodox, non-heretical, catholic believers. which is why i don’t think it should be binding doctrine (have i said that already?? lol)

 

[justasking4]

BanksOfTheTiber;2781666]Many/most of the Marian Dogmas are not contradicted by Sacred Scripture. But in order to discuss (not argue) this subject with Protestants, you have to overcome their clinging to Sola Scriptura, and present evidence for the strength of Sacred Tradition and logic.

To say that Mary was sinless is a contradiction to Romans 3:9-10

I was raised Free Will Baptist , and it took me a long time to get to this point. I now embrace 90% of Catholic teachings because logic and my own studies won out (hence my username).

This is, IMHO, the only way you’ll ever reach Protestants, and convince them that dogma isn’t made up out of thin air. Open confrontation makes the walls go up. Loving explanation has the opposite effect.

If you do the origin of many of the doctrines of the catholic church you will find that a lot of it is based on speculations of men.

Dogma and Tradition should never contradict Scripture (or Scripture is no longer sacred and infalible - and no Christian believes that is the case), but something can be true, and not explicitly stated in Scripture (re: Trinity)

True. However you do have a number of contradictions with scipture and church teachings. Mary is one. Celibate leadership is another.

*Mary was a virgin at conception and at the birth of Christ? * : Scriptural! Check! Next!!!

Mary - Ever Virgin? : Scripture doesn’t say one way or the other.

Have you looked at the references that Mary did indeed have other children?

But Scripture is oddly silent about Joseph after Christ is found in the temple at age 12. The oldest artwork depicting Mary and Joseph depicts her as very young, and he as rather old; so it’s likely the silence is due to his death. But the real kicker for me was when Christ gives his mother to John from the cross. It would have been unthinkable in that culture for Christ to give Mary to John’s care, if he had any siblings! Those facts taken together were enough to convince me.

Convince you of what?

I could go on, but I thought I’d reveal some insight about how to put this question forward, and make some progress. I pray that is your intent, and I wish you well as you share your faith.

In Christ,

 

[justasking4]

i completely understand. i would say that there is some evidence in the early church but moreso in the eastern orthodox traditions regarding the assumption (or the Dormition).

one of the problems i have (and i know it’s thrown out a lot but it’s still a problem for me) is the quote by Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 where he basically says no one knows of the eventual fate of Mary. it just shows me that even as early as that, there was debate on this amongst the orthodox, non-heretical, catholic believers. which is why i don’t think it should be binding doctrine (have i said that already?? lol)

If you are catholic doesn’t it mean you have to believe in the assumption of Mary even though you know full well there is no evidence for it?

 

[bengal_fan]

If you are catholic doesn’t it mean you have to believe in the assumption of Mary even though you know full well there is no evidence for it?

if you are catholic (which i am not), you do have to believe in the assumption. good thing there is some evidence for it. just not enough for me to be convinced it should be a binding doctrine.

 

[justasking4]

if you are catholic (which i am not), you do have to believe in the assumption. good thing there is some evidence for it. just not enough for me to be convinced it should be a binding doctrine.

What is the evidence for the assumption?

 

[bengal_fan]

What is the evidence for the assumption?

there is the fact that within just a few hundred years people were talking about it (through writings) in a way that seems it had been passed down orally. if you use archetypes, then the scripture points to a queen mother who sits with her son on the throne. also, catholics equate the ark with Mary, and Jewish tradition says that the ark was taken into heaven.

you should try reading “Hail, Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn. he is a former Presbyterian minister who is now a leading catholic apologist. again, i am not catholic, but we have to understand that their doctrines aren’t just made up out of thin air.

 

[Protestant101]

there is the fact that within just a few hundred years people were talking about it (through writings) in a way that seems it had been passed down orally. if you use archetypes, then the scripture points to a queen mother who sits with her son on the throne. also, catholics equate the ark with Mary, and Jewish tradition says that the ark was taken into heaven.

you should try reading “Hail, Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn. he is a former Presbyterian minister who is now a leading catholic apologist. again, i am not catholic, but we have to understand that their doctrines aren’t just made up out of thin air.

Well, you just answered one of my questions; if he is an “apologist” there is not much to talk about.

 

[bengal_fan]

Well, you just answered one of my questions; if he is an “apologist” there is not much to talk about.

no, reading some one else’s book isn’t about debate it’s about learning. if you disagree with some one, isn’t it wise to learn what they think and why they think it?

 

[Protestant101]

I’d rather say that most Catholics are going by Protestants’ presentation about what Sola Scriptura is, and how it is used in Protestant arguments.

This is what I was getting at when I said that most Catholics teach falsehoods when it comes to saying what Sola Scriptura really is. What you say we believe; and we actually do believe, are two different things

 

[Protestant101]

no, reading some one else’s book isn’t about debate it’s about learning. if you disagree with some one, isn’t it wise to learn what they think and why they think it?

An apologist is one who debates and looks at all kinds of ways to trick people into their line of thinking. They only have one intention, and there is therefore nothing to “talk” about.

 

[bengal_fan]

This is what I was getting at when I said that most Catholics teach falsehoods when it comes to saying what Sola Scriptura really is. What you say we believe; and we actually do believe, are two different things

and it works in reverse as well. many protestants think they know catholic doctrine, but they don’t. that’s why i say learn all you can.

 

[Protestant101]

and it works in reverse as well. many protestants think they know catholic doctrine, but they don’t. that’s why i say learn all you can.

OK; but in this thread we are talking about Sola Scriptura; and it would be interesting to see how many catholics can answer my question about why the Bible does not contain all there is needed for salvation? You keep saying that the Bible is not the only source of inspiration; we keep agreeing. Yet in the same breath you keep saying that the Bible does not contain all there is to know for our salvation. Can you name anything specific that is not in the Bible; but that is necessary for our salvation?

 

[bengal_fan]

OK; but in this thread we are talking about Sola Scriptura; and it would be interesting to see how many catholics can answer my question about why the Bible does not contain all there is needed for salvation? You keep saying that the Bible is not the only source of inspiration; we keep agreeing. Yet in the same breath you keep saying that the Bible does not contain all there is to know for our salvation. Can you name anything specific that is not in the Bible; but that is necessary for our salvation?

first, i’ve never said the bible doesn’t contain all that is needed for salvation. remember, i am not catholic. i have said that the bible cannot be properly interpreted alone (this goes for catholic or protestant.

 

[bengal_fan]

An apologist is one who debates and looks at all kinds of ways to trick people into their line of thinking. They only have one intention, and there is therefore nothing to “talk” about.

wow, the word “trick” thrown in there. there is nothing tricky about it, you form an argument and present it. every pastor does this every week (probably on saturday at your church). do you not listen to your pastor because they are trying to trick you? and if apologists are trying to “trick” you, why not read their arguments and pick them apart? it will only serve to strengthen your faith.

 

[bengal_fan]

OK; but in this thread we are talking about Sola Scriptura

that’s actually another thread. in here we are supposed to be talking about the Marian Dogmans and where they might be or might not be found in the bible.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

To say that Mary was sinless is a contradiction to Romans 3:9-10

You will notice, that I said “Many/most”…I wasn’t willing to say “All”.

If you do the origin of many of the doctrines of the catholic church you will find that a lot of it is based on speculations of men.

And the Evangelical denominations largely believe in The Rapture, which I could easily claim falls into the same bucket.

True. However you do have a number of contradictions with scipture and church teachings. Mary is one. Celibate leadership is another.

Paul makes it pretty clear that a celibate life is an acceptable circumstance. I think we’d both agree that the sticking point for anyone who isn’t Catholic, or is on the fence, usually boils down to Mary.

Have you looked at the references that Mary did indeed have other children?

I won’t claim to be so well versed in Hebrew or Greek as to be able to pick apart the scriptures in their original text. But, others can claim such, and I can study what they say, and there is much room for doubt that “brother” means “son of my mother” or “son of my father” in this context.

Convince you of what?

That there’s overwhelming evidence that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.

Did this post come out ok? I’m used to writing HTML and all these widgets get me all crossed up!

 

[BrewMax]

The Virgin Mary is our hope and aspiration, she is the image of a redeemed humanity, free from sin, assumed in bodily glory and united to Christ.

QUOTE]

Sorry, she isn’t mine. Jesus Christ is my hope and aspiration. Jesus was the only one free from sin. St. Thomas Aquinas stated just that. As far as the Assumption goes, there is not Biblical support for it and I just can’t buy something that expensive without an owner’s manual. God’s Love and Peace be with you.

 

[BrewMax]

Mnay Marian doctrines are based off of the history provided to us in the OT, study of the historical period, certain words and phrases used by the NT writers, influence of the Holy Spirit, and oral tradition.

I recommed Hail Holy Queen by Soctt Hahn. He gives Biblical,a nd historical, references to many of the Marian doctrine.

no thank you.

 

[bengal_fan]

no thank you.

are you that afraid you might be wrong?? i’ve read the book a few times and learned much. i also was forced to investigate for myself and i still have problems with many of the Marian Dogmas. i’m not suggesting having such an open mind that your brain falls out, but this is a man who was once in your camp and changed. don’t you think it’s worth it to find out why, and if you are still convinced you are right you will have a lot more ammo when debating this issue.