Mary buried in Ephesus?

[motstraumen]

Do not feed the trolls. Someone with a trial membership who posts things like motstraumen is only here to bait people. Once his trial membership runs out we will hear nothing more from him./QUOTE

 

[jmcrae]

Remember Hadrian’s wall in the North of England.

This was in 121 AD - nearly a century after the death and resurrection of Christ. Hadrian took one look at my venerable ancestors in their blue war paint (they had only just discovered the uses of fire and stone) and said, “We have reached the end of the world - that there is Hell, and those are the demons. Let us build a wall so that no one will fall accidentally into Hell.”

Britain was not yet a civilized country; it was still populated by nomads and cave dwellers. It seems incredibly unlikely that they were producing anything that could not be got by Joseph and the Holy Family, nearer to home. Rome itself was much more technologically advanced than any of the outlying regions; it would have made much more sense for them to go to Rome than to travel all the way to England for an inferior product.

 

[jmcrae]

I have studied about purgatory and understand it to be a mistranslation that Jerome put into the Vulgate when he was translating it into Latin.

Source?

I don’t think the actual word “Purgatory” exists in Scripture; rather, the concept of purification of the soul either during or after death is alluded to in several places (saved as through fire, sinful works burned up on the last day, in prison until the last farthing is paid, putting on the white garment before entering into the wedding feast, etc.) And the Maccabeans absolutely prayed for their dead who were in the region/state/time of purification of souls, so that they could be released into the presence of God, but again, the word “Purgatory” does not actually appear; only a description of it.

 

[motstraumen]

This was in 121 AD - nearly a century after the death and resurrection of Christ. Hadrian took one look at my venerable ancestors in their blue war paint (they had only just discovered the uses of fire and stone) and said, “We have reached the end of the world - that there is Hell, and those are the demons. Let us build a wall so that no one will fall accidentally into Hell.”

Britain was not yet a civilized country; it was still populated by nomads and cave dwellers. It seems incredibly unlikely that they were producing anything that could not be got by Joseph and the Holy Family, nearer to home. Rome itself was much more technologically advanced than any of the outlying regions; it would have made much more sense for them to go to Rome than to travel all the way to England for an inferior product.

Please, don’t call the Britains uncivilized. THere is ancient proof that tin and other metals were gotten from Britain. Why would you call it inferior? This is where Rome got it, Phonecians sailed there. The world was not as narrow as we think of it at this time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain

Britain was not unknown to the Classical world. As early as the 4th century BC the Greeks, Phoenicians and Carthaginians traded for Cornish tin:[1] the Greeks refer to the Cassiterides or “tin islands” and describe them as being situated somewhere near the west coasts of Europe.[2] The Carthaginian sailor Himilco is said to have visited the island in the 5th century BC, and the Greek explorer Pytheas in the 4th. But it was regarded as a place of mystery, with some writers even refusing to believe it existed.[3]

The first direct Roman contact came when the Roman general and future dictator, Julius Caesar, made two expeditions to Britain in 55 and 54 BC as an offshoot of his conquest of Gaul, believing the Britons had been helping the Gallic resistance. The first expedition, more a reconnaissance than a full invasion, gained a foothold on the coast of Kent but, undermined by storm damage to the ships and a lack of cavalry, was unable to advance further. The expedition was a military failure, but was at least a political success: the Roman Senate declared a 20-day public holiday in Rome in honour of this unprecedented achievement.[4] from Wikepedia

 

[motstraumen]

Source?

I don’t think the actual word “Purgatory” exists in Scripture; rather, the concept of purification of the soul either during or after death is alluded to in several places (saved as through fire, sinful works burned up on the last day, in prison until the last farthing is paid, putting on the white garment before entering into the wedding feast, etc.) And the Maccabeans absolutely prayed for their dead who were in the region/state/time of purification of souls, so that they could be released into the presence of God, but again, the word “Purgatory” does not actually appear; only a description of it.

Thank you. I was thinking of the word penance and penitant. Sorry.

 

[jam070406]

I misquoted Capt who did not say Mary was buried at Glastonbury, but he says there is local tradtion that points to this idea at least. Sorry. I suspect I have ruffled way too many feathers here. I apologize, but a consistent theme I have notice with this site is that any questioning of Catholic practice or doctrine receives venomous responses and barbs against those who question. It is a shallow faith if that is what you are reduced to. I admit that I fell prey to it when Protestants were being lumped together with UFO seekers/believers and Muslims and wingnuts. Paul tells us that we will be called fools and unwise by non-believers. So I should not have allowed myself to be drawn in. I give thanks for all the truly faithful Catholics out there who know it is Christ Alone as the full Church teaches!

Of course it’s all about Christ!

Catholics don’t mind answering questions to folks that are sincerely asking about the Faith. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you KNOW Catholic Teaching, and you reject it!
You question Catholic practice by way off attack (arrogant and rudely at that) And you can’t understand why people get ruffled?? Are you serious?

I’m done with you too.

 

[hosemonkey]

I admit that I fell prey to it when Protestants were being lumped together with UFO seekers/believers and Muslims and wingnuts.

Yes, you really blew your cool, didn’t you?

Sorry, couldn’t resist. I remain on my “Gunboat” in defense of the Faith. No challenge will go unanswered. “Malleus Haereticorum”.

 

[motstraumen]

Of course it’s all about Christ!

Catholics don’t mind answering questions to folks that are sincerely asking about the Faith. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you KNOW Catholic Teaching, and you reject it!
You question Catholic practice by way off attack (arrogant and rudely at that) And you can’t understand why people get ruffled?? Are you serious?

I’m done with you too.

Have you perused the attacks on Protestants on this site. When the LWF and the Roman Catholic Church signed the Joint Declaration of Justification we were to dialogue on all levels. I brought up a point of tradition, gave references and was attacked. This is a common theme I have seen on this site. I do not reject truly Catholic teaching, I do reject some Roman Catholic teaching because it has led many away from Christ alone.

 

[jmcrae]

The first direct Roman contact came when the Roman general and future dictator, Julius Caesar, made two expeditions to Britain in 55 and 54 BC as an offshoot of his conquest of Gaul, believing the Britons had been helping the Gallic resistance.

And you’re suggesting that his own Hebrew subjects, who had no money or means to call their own, due to the fact that they were under Roman subjection and all their goods and money (except for what they needed for bare survival) were being confiscated for taxes once a year, were routinely going there for yearly tin trading, from at least 40 years previous to that?

I consider it highly unlikely.

It’s like suggesting that citizens of Cuba, or else Buddhists from the province of Tibet in China, are travelling back and forth to Mars each trading season to obtain mineral rocks, without the knowledge of Fidel Castro or without the knowledge of Wen Jiabao, and while the technological ability to do that is still, generally speaking, very much under construction.

 

[motstraumen]

Yes, you really blew your cool, didn’t you?

 

[hosemonkey]

I do reject some Roman Catholic teaching because it has led many away from Christ alone.

We are also afflicted with those who “reject some Roman Catholic teaching” as well. We call them “Cafeteria Catholics” who believe that they can be selective in their belief. Another term for these folk is “protestant.”

 

[motstraumen]

And you’re suggesting that his own Hebrew subjects, who had no money or means to call their own, due to the fact that they were under Roman subjection and all their goods and money (except for what they needed for bare survival) were being confiscated for taxes once a year, were routinely going there for yearly tin trading, from at least 40 years previous to that?

I consider it highly unlikely.

It’s like suggesting that citizens of Cuba, or else Buddhists from the province of Tibet in China, are travelling back and forth to Mars each trading season to obtain mineral rocks, without the knowledge of Fidel Castro or without the knowledge of Wen Jiabao, and while the technological ability to do that is still, generally speaking, very much under construction./Q

Following your understanding the women who provided for Jesus and his disciples would not have had the means to do so. All the people were not destitute. That is a misreading of scripture. The quote above from me are not my words they are facts gleaned from historical records of the time. If the Phonecians (also under Rome’s thumb) could get there don’t you think their Jewish cousins could get there too? To think of travel as so difficult is selling our ancient ancestors short…and thus would say progress was impossible. Civilization didn’t start in 1492, 1619 or 1776 it is a process of people willing to think beyond their own limitations from the first one who took two sticks and rubbed them together, to the one a generation ago looking up to the stars and saying I think we could go there.

 

[jmcrae]

Following your understanding the women who provided for Jesus and his disciples would not have had the means to do so.

We know that they were married to Roman citizens; that’s how they had the means.

All the people were not destitute. That is a misreading of scripture. The quote above from me are not my words they are facts gleaned from historical records of the time. If the Phonecians (also under Rome’s thumb) could get there don’t you think their Jewish cousins could get there too?

The Jews were landlocked, and they didn’t have any means of transportation, other than walking or by donkey. The Phoenicians were coastal people, and were experts in ship-buidling. There is a vast difference between the two.

To think of travel as so difficult is selling our ancient ancestors short…and thus would say progress was impossible.

Hardly. I am just saying that technology not available to the ruling elite is probably also not available to their own oppressed slaves, unless said slaves have access to the means of production (which the Phoenicians did, and the Hebrews did not).

 

[motstraumen]

We know that they were married to Roman citizens; that’s how they had the means.

We do? Yes, one was of Herod’s court was that a Roman court. Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, a man of means and even Roman Catholic tradition upholds that. Look at teh Catholic encyclopedia and you will see that the Tradition of at least Joseph going to Britian is supported.

The Jews were landlocked, and they didn’t have any means of transportation, other than walking or by donkey. The Phoenicians were coastal people, and were experts in ship-buidling. There is a vast difference between the two.

They were not land locked and they did travel how else did the faith spread so quickly to Rome and Alexandria and even Spain? or going the other way to India and perhaps even China with Thomas? And with the Phoenicians the traditions states that Joseph hired Phoenicians to sail him there. It was a commercial business that the Jews were very capable of.

Hardly. I am just saying that technology not available to the ruling elite is probably also not available to their own oppressed slaves, unless said slaves have access to the means of production (which the Phoenicians did, and the Hebrews did not).

Are you saying the the Jews of Jesus’ day were slaves? They may have felt oppressed but they were not (at least not the majority) slaves. The Jewish nation received a great deal of allowances to live culturally as Jews. You use a way too broad of brush in your painting of the complex nature of the Jewish nation in the time of Christ. They were innovative and in many circles highly admired even their religion, thus the God-fearers of the New Testament.

 

[motstraumen]

Means of travel, walking and donkeys? Didn’t the disciples have boats? Didn’t Jesus use this means of travel at least on the Sea of Gallillee?

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying the the Jews of Jesus’ day were slaves? They may have felt oppressed but they were not (at least not the majority) slaves.

They were a subject people. They were not permitted to own land or property, and their work was to be for the benefit of the Empire.

The Jewish nation received a great deal of allowances to live culturally as Jews.

As did the Blacks in America, and as do the Buddhists in Tibet.

You use a way too broad of brush in your painting of the complex nature of the Jewish nation in the time of Christ. They were innovative and in many circles highly admired even their religion, thus the God-fearers of the New Testament.

All true, and none of which gives them superior technology to the Romans.

 

[jmcrae]

Means of travel, walking and donkeys? Didn’t the disciples have boats? Didn’t Jesus use this means of travel at least on the Sea of Gallillee?

Those were lakes - and not very big ones, either - the disciples travelled across the Sea of Galillee to the other side one evening after supper, and still had time to listen to Jesus give them several chapters of teaching, before bed time.

You could not travel by boat from the Sea of Galillee to Britain - you could only get as far as the other side, which was still within the boundary of Galillee.

 

[motstraumen]

We are also afflicted with those who “reject some Roman Catholic teaching” as well. We call them “Cafeteria Catholics” who believe that they can be selective in their belief. Another term for these folk is “protestant.”

How does the doctrine of the assumption and the perpetual virginity of Mary and the belief thereof support one’s salvation through Christ alone? How is it necessary? Now remember I believe in them, but not as salvific. It seems to me the Roman church is Cafeteria in that it took a popular belief and made it a canon law. It does not add to the Christolgical doctrine of salvation at all, nor does the doctrine of papal authority and infallibility for that matter. Remember Papal authority was not an issue until after Pope Gregory the Great.

 

[motstraumen]

They were a subject people. They were not permitted to own land or property, and their work was to be for the benefit of the Empire.

What proof do you have. I believe Peter owned both house and boat. Mary Martha and Lazurus had a house…If they were subjegated such, why not the Phoenecians?

How do you account for St. Joseph having the means to take his family to Egypt? If he were subjegated as you suggest he would not have been allowed out of the area.

 

[jmcrae]

How does the doctrine of the assumption and the perpetual virginity of Mary and the belief thereof support one’s salvation through Christ alone? How is it necessary?

Because who one’s parents are, determine who one is. Who Christ is, is contingent on who Mary is. If Mary is not who we say she is, then neither is Christ, since Christ is not her son, but someone else’s son. Who we understand Mary to be has a great deal of influence on who we understand Christ to be.

If we believe in a false Christ - a Christ who does not actually exist - then are we saved? (Can we be saved by an imaginary being?)

Or is salvation contingent on believing in the real Christ - the one who actually exists?