Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Ginger2]

It’s hard to have an honest discussion with you if you are going to be disingenuous, Ginger.

Excuse me, but the documents cited as proofs are forgeries. Where is the real evidence? And if it exists, why bring up forgeries to support your claims?

Come back with real evidence and please refrain from mean-spirited accusations.
I quoted directly from Catholic info that plainly states the belief is founded in falsified documents:

"**The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal **treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, **and in a spurious letter **attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

 

[joe370]

Ginger2

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her.

Is it safe to say that God has revealed the answer to both you and I?

In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

How can we know, once God has revealed it, who has a correct understanding regarding certain verses and who does not?

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

How can we know if I am the one that is spiritually blind or that you are the one that is spiritually blind when scripture fails to do so?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Excuse me, but the documents cited as proofs are forgeries. Where is the real evidence? And if it exists, why bring up forgeries to support your claims?

Come back with real evidence and please refrain from mean-spirited accusations.
I quoted directly from Catholic info that plainly states the belief is founded in falsified documents:

"**The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal **treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, **and in a spurious letter **attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

You specifically quoted ONLY those parts, and gave the implication that this is where the Church derives Her belief from, when the article clearly states that it is from Apostolic Tradition.

Don’t worry though, I quoted the whole paragraph for the honest inquirer.

(With the way you quote things, you could use the Bible to prove that there is no God.)

Shall I quote you the definition of disingenuous?

 

[Ginger2]

You and I, after reading those passages, still disagree.They did not resolve anything. Did God leave you and I with a way to resolve our differences when scripture clearly fails to do so?

You and I, perhaps, but not someone who is spiritually blind. According to Scriptures all we can do is pray God opens their heart and mind to understanding.

May I ask you a question? You seem to think that because some people error in their understanding of Scriptures we need a human authority to give us the accurate meaning and then the problem becomes non-existant,

but their are Catholics who sometimes miss understand Catholic teaching as well, and some who reject parts of Catholic dogma…

So how is having the pope an advantage for you? The Bible is just as clearly written as the popes excathedral statements and still both can be rejected or misunderstood.

 

[joshrp]

Well, He could, He can do anything. But, by His very nature, we know that God cannot change His mind (Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever).

If we go by the Old Testament (because it is the only way we can know what God has said and promised prior to the birth of Jesus), the only requirement for Jesus’s mother is that she is a virgin. Jesus could not function outside of the scope of this, because that would be God changing His mind.

But, if you go down this road, then all other aspects of church doctrine about Mary would be fair game (the necessity for the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s sinlessness and her perpetual virginity).

“My thoughts are not your thoughts. My ways are not your ways.”

What authority did God give you to define what God thinks or how He works? This is my problem with people who denigrate Catholic Church teachings. What does sola scriptura say? That everyone is able to interpret Scripture on their own authority through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Unless of course you believe that the Holy Spirit is telling you that the Catholic Church is absolutely right on everything that her magisterium officially teaches as infallible doctrine? Is that how it goes? Who wrote the Bible? The people of His Church. Jesus gave His great commission to teach everything to His Church, which was born on Pentecost, after He had ascended to Heaven. You wouldn’t even have the Bible without the Catholic Church preserving, passing it on, reciting it at Mass, and discerning which documents were inspired. If the Bible can be interpreted by the Bible itself, then why bother having Bible studies or even talking about Scripture at all? Where is the Protestant Reformation in the Bible? I’ve read the whole Bible and I don’t see anything about Protestants in there. Where is Luther or Calvin in the Bible? If these people are not in the Bible, then why do we need Luther or Calvin or any other person who rejects any other source of religious authority than the Bible itself to explain the Bible to us? My library has 55 volumes of Luther’s correspondence, sermons, commentary on the Scriptures. If Luther believed that Scripture alone is all we need and anything else just corrupts the Scriptures, he should have become a door to door Bible salesman and not said a word. He could have travelled across the globe and put a Bible in every, mailbox, P.O. Box, and homeless person’s cardboard box. If all we need is Scripture and the Holy Spirit can explain it to us directly, then why bother commenting on it at all with personal speculations? Did the Holy Spirit tell you that Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us? If it wasn’t the Holy Spirit who told you this, then why are you repeating it to us? If you have a problem with Jesus’ mother, you are talking to the wrong people by complaining about her here. If you don’t like Mary, why don’t you complain to her Son, His Father, and His Spirit, and see how much they like it? I’m sure they appreciate you ranting and raving about how insignificant and sinful Their Daughter, Mother, and Spouse is, whom They chose from the beginning of time to be the vessel through which the Savior of all of us would be brought into this world.

God did not say unto Moses “Honor thy father and mother, but complain incessantly about Mine!”

Good day sir!!
Joshua

 

[pablope]

Excuse me, but the documents cited as proofs are forgeries. Where is the real evidence? And if it exists, why bring up forgeries to support your claims?

Come back with real evidence and please refrain from mean-spirited accusations.
I quoted directly from Catholic info that plainly states the belief is founded in falsified documents:

"**The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal **treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, **and in a spurious letter **attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

Looks like you left other parts which do not agree with you and selectively quoted parts you only like…like leaving out the blue part…and so,

From post 255, which I requote here…

[SIGN]From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. B]Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. [/SIGN]

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis,

This doesn’t say the document is spurious…all it says is the authorship, or who is purported to be the author in not St. Melito…but someone else.

Look at the last part…" wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven"…

Do you think the apostles would conclude this on their own? Or somebody inspired them to come to this conclusion?

 

[Ginger2]

You specifically quoted ONLY those parts, and gave the implication that this is where the Church derives Her belief from, when the article clearly states that it is from Apostolic Tradition.

Don’t worry though, I quoted the whole paragraph for the honest inquirer.

(With the way you quote things, you could use the Bible to prove that there is no God.)

Shall I quote you the definition of disingenuous?

You missed the point. If you have proof, why use false information to convince others?

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states your belief is “founded” in forgeries. So a sideline stating “Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.” without any evidence to back it up fails miserably, imo.

I don’t care to talk with you any more. So you’re free to say anything you like without rebuttal - enjoy yourself.

 

[Marybeloved]

You missed the point. If you have proof, why use false information to convince others?

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states your belief is “founded” in forgeries. So a sideline stating “Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.” without any evidence to back it up fails miserably, imo.

I don’t care to talk with you any more. So you’re free to say anything you like without rebuttal - enjoy yourself.

Asking for evidence and then putting your hands over your ears and going lalalala! not listening! isn’t very honest or mature- Would you only prefer if people agreed with you?

It’s clear to anyone who reads your quotation in context that that word is a typo you read into the document, deliberately or innocently. Clearly the word intended there was “found” not founded, as the same document cannot state that a belief is founded on a document of the 4th or 5th Centuries and in the same “breath” state that it’s founded on Apostolic tradition, which goes back to the Apostles! This latter position in fact, is what lines up with Catholic faith which never bases any belief on anything other than the Apostolic Tradition, part of which the scriptures make up. Why get annoyed when your mistake is laid bare if it was innocent?

If you’re asking for proof of the assumption other than the word of the Church, I’m not one to even bother attempting it- All the scriptures are based on Apostolic Tradition, the choice of the scriptures is based on Apostolic tradition, The foundation doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and Jesus’ twofold nature in one divine person, are all based on Apostolic tradition- If you won’t trust Apostolic tradition, then you really have bigger problems than the assumption to think about, my friend- starting with your choice of faith/religion.

 

[joe370]

Hey Ginger…

Ginger2;8456819]You and I, perhaps, but not someone who is spiritually blind. According to Scriptures all we can do is pray God opens their heart and mind to understanding.

Either you are doctrinally blind or I am. We can’t both be right regarding Mary - right? I was not entrusted, by Jesus, with the authority to resolve anything. I defer to His church. SS proponents, all defer to the bible via private interpretation to resolve their difference, which is why there is so much doctrinal disparity within Protestantism.

May I ask you a question? You seem to think that because some people error in their understanding of Scriptures we need a human authority to give us the accurate meaning and then the problem becomes non-existant,

The problem never becomes non-existent because people will always reject human authority; it’s human nature.

Jesus is no longer here to resolve our doctrinal differences, and scripture clearly is not helping us.

How is doctrinal truth, regarding any one doctrine, to be ascertained?

Scripture tells you that Mary was a sinner, for all have sinned…scripture tells me the polar opposite. If Jesus did not leave us with some sort of human authority to resolve our differences, how can we resolve them?

but their are Catholics who sometimes miss understand Catholic teaching as well, and some who reject parts of Catholic dogma…

Free will…But if the CC is the church established by God, then why reject parts of Catholic dogma?

So how is having the pope an advantage for you?

I now believe that the Petrine office (the keys, as in Isiah 22) - is the key to catholic church’s oneness and unity?As a former protestant, I wanted to belong to the church which Jesus built (continues to build) - on Rock, which can never be overcome by our biggest adversary.

"And I tell you that you are Peter, (kepha) - and on this rock (kepha) - I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The Bible is just as clearly written as the popes excathedral statements and still both can be rejected or misunderstood.

Yup.

 

[joe370]

You missed the point. If you have proof, why use false information to convince others?

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states your belief is “founded” in forgeries. So a sideline stating “Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.” without any evidence to back it up fails miserably, imo.

I don’t care to talk with you any more. So you’re free to say anything you like without rebuttal - enjoy yourself.

I’m confused. You trust that the CC got it right about the 2 wills of Christ, the Trinity, the doctrine of original sin, all of which are not explicitly taught in the bible, and challenged by many in the early church, as well as the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible, but do not trust that the CC got it right about certain doctrines regarding Jesus’ mother Mary, such as the assumption?

 

[PbloPicasso]

I know this is a risky thing to admit. But I think 2 ideas are open and plausible…not that its that important to me, though. But the first time I heard what I’m about to post I thought, what a crazy, loony, bazaar reach, desperate… I heard a priest, more than one, say this:

God chose Mary, who has/had free will. Mary, when asked to be the mother of Jesus, agreed, …no she accepted with humility, not obedience, yet your choice was sort of an obedience by joining her will with the Father’s. At this time, since God transcends time and space, he reached into her past and purified her from all sin, assuming she even had sin if you interpret scripture that way (which I don’t). I see that it the theology is plausible because we believe all of the miracles i the Old and New Testaments, so why not believe this to be the case…that it’s plausible.

Protestants don’t have a problem thinking past this, unless they are so misguided that they won’t say whether Mary is in heaven or not… I find that obnoxious, uncharitable and ignorant. I actually read a few preachers on Preachers Files say this. It’s shameful to me and they are in the same faith I am from.

 

[joe370]

Hey Ginger, Let’s assume the word “all” means just that, “all” humans. Jesus was fully human but of course He is an exception. If we accept an exception to the word “all” doesn’t it become difficult to prove that there are no other exceptions by simply quoting this same verse?

Examples of exceptions:

Did all the world go after Christ in the following verse?

“… the whole world has gone after him” John 12:19

Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Luke 2:1

Did Caesar tax the people from India, China, and South America ? Matthew 2:3

“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him”

Every single person in Jerusalem?

“ … Then all the disciples left him [Jesus] and fled.” Matthew 26:56

But we read in just two verses later that Peter did in fact follow Christ in Matthew 26:58. And in John 18:15-16 We read that another disciple followed Christ along with Simon Peter. And this other disciple knew the high priest and was therefore able to get Peter into the gate. This “other disciple,” is John. He even follows Christ all the way to the cross where he is identified as the “beloved disciple.” See John 19:26. The passage in John 21: 20-24 clarifies that he is none other than John, the author of the fourth Gospel.

Did the whole world lieth in the wicked one in the following verse?

“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. 1 John 5:19

Romans 15: “I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.”

Of course only God has “all” knowledge.

If “all” in the preceding verses allow for exceptions then surely “all” in Romans 3:23 can allow for exceptions too yes, no, maybe?

John said:

"Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil.”

In Gen. 3 God put enmity between the devil and the woman. How could this be true if the “woman” at any time, belonged to the devil?" To be at enmity is for one person to be completely opposed to another, and it is God who makes this woman and Satan completely opposed to each other. Also notice that it is not mankind in general or even all women, but a specific woman that God is speaking about. What God does He does perfectly, and so wouldn’t this opposition between the woman in question and Satan be perfect.

For Mary to be completely opposed to Satan she could never have been on Satan’s side, against God. Therefore Mary (by the help of God’s grace) - never sinned, for if she had ever sinned she would certainly not be opposed to Satan at that time.

Your thoughts friend? I’m not trying to change your mind. Just wondering if any of this is plausible to you?

 

[Marybeloved]

I know this is a risky thing to admit. But I think 2 ideas are open and plausible…not that its that important to me, though. But the first time I heard what I’m about to post I thought, what a crazy, loony, bazaar reach, desperate… I heard a priest, more than one, say this:

God chose Mary, who has/had free will. Mary, when asked to be the mother of Jesus, agreed, …no she accepted with humility, not obedience, yet your choice was sort of an obedience by joining her will with the Father’s. At this time, since God transcends time and space, he reached into her past and purified her from all sin, assuming she even had sin if you interpret scripture that way (which I don’t). I see that it the theology is plausible because we believe all of the miracles i the Old and New Testaments, so why not believe this to be the case…that it’s plausible.

Protestants don’t have a problem thinking past this, unless they are so misguided that they won’t say whether Mary is in heaven or not… I find that obnoxious, uncharitable and ignorant. I actually read a few preachers on Preachers Files say this. It’s shameful to me and they are in the same faith I am from.

First of all, if there’s any doubt or question of the Mother of God not being in Heaven…
a) This woman declared by God to be Blessed among all women,
b) Whom God called filled with grace through the Holy Archangel Gabriel even before she said said yes to God.
c) Whose identity and great honor God the Holy Ghost revealed to St. Elizabeth, mother of St. John the Baptist thus: Mother of My Lord, and blessed with Holy Spirit-inspired awe, declared: How could it be given me that My Lord’s Mother should come to me?- An echo of what would transpire between their sons thirty years in future when Elizabeth’s son would declare to Mary’s son: Lord, do you come to me? I should be baptized by you, and I’m not worthy to tie the lace of his sandals.
d) This woman who knew herself as God’s hand-maid or Slave and submitted herself to God, “Be it to me as you say”. Later, “The Lord has done mighty things for me” and “Do whatever he tells you”.
e) This one called by Jesus Christ “woman” something some people like to brandish as “proof” of her lack of greatness, when this very word was used as a sign of deep respect in the person who spoke it to the one he said it to- Something coming closer to “Lady” or “My Lady” or “Madame”.

If there’s any doubt as to whether this one is in Heaven, then no-one else from us is there- not a one! As you say, this truly is a shame.

Secondly, your idea is interesting, but if God transcended time and did that, then Mary would still be the one who never sinned, because God would have altered her past completely! Her “sins” (theoretically speaking, of course, because Our Lady was sinless) would have* “never been”* by virtue of that miracle, get it?

 

[babylonsfalling]

I’m confused. You trust that the CC got it right about the 2 wills of Christ, the Trinity, the doctrine of original sin, all of which are not explicitly taught in the bible, and challenged by many in the early church, as well as the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible, but do not trust that the CC got it right about certain doctrines regarding Jesus’ mother Mary, such as the assumption?

There are lots of folk out there who think being a good Christian automatically involves disagreeing with the Catholic Church on certain things. You’ll find a LOT of these folk in the ex Catholic crowd. And this includes ignoring certain parts of Scripture even though they will claim to be using Scripture only.

Nobody who relies on Scripture only would deny the Real Presence or tradition.

 

[Marybeloved]

Protestants don’t have a problem thinking past this, unless they are so misguided that they won’t say whether Mary is in heaven or not… I find that obnoxious, uncharitable and ignorant. I actually read a few preachers on Preachers Files say this. It’s shameful to me and they are in the same faith I am from.

I saw something on a you-tube debate between Muslims and Evangelical Christians, that demonstrated how twisted questioning Mary’s holiness really is in the grand scheme of things. I believe it was Shadine vs Sami, “Who was Jesus?” or something like that- Part of an Easter weekend series of debates between Muslims and Christians (Who were only evangelicals). This thing really stuck out, How absurd it is for Christians to question Mary’s Holiness.

The Muslim, in trying to prove that Jesus could not have been God sighted Mary’s fulfilling the Mosaic Law of uncleanliness after child-birth, in the Gospels. The Muslim kept saying, **“How can God make anything unclean??? God?? Make the woman unclean by dwelling in her???” The Christians did not get it, of course, but the Muslim was absolutely correct and what he said is clear to anyone who truly, really ponders the fact that God, YHWH, The Great I AM, Holiness itself came into Mary, took flesh from her and dwelt in her for nine months!!- God makes clean!!! God makes Holy, God cannot enter, much less dwell in an unclean abode, God cannot live in sin for nine months. If only Protestants could ponder God’s absolute and transcendent holiness with reverential fear like even the Muslims seem to be able to do:shrug:.

People wonder at Catholic (even Orthodox) veneration of Mary, and say… But she was just a sinner! An ordinary woman! Say that to the Jews about the Temple at Jerusalem, About the Holy of Holies, and About the Ark of the Covenant- Say to them, But that’ was just an ordinary building of wood and stone, That inside was just another room, That Ark only just a box!.…If you can begin to comprehend the Jewish Horror at this, you may perhaps begin to comprehend why Catholics think it nothing short of insanity to call God’s literal Temple, His Holy of Holies and His Ark of the Covenant, just another sinner.

If you want Biblical proof for the veneration of the Virgin Mary, please undertake a nice, long, prayerful study of the place and the holiness of The Ark, The Holy of Holies and The Temple, in the heart of the devout Jew- If you really believe that Jesus Christ was YHWH, that he truly came to Mary’s womb as surely as YHWH came to the Holy of Holies, That’s all the evidence you’ll ever need.

 

[Marybeloved]

God did not say unto Moses “Honor thy father and mother, but complain incessantly about Mine!”

 

[jntsimon]

Protestants, scripture says:* “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”* Romans 3:23

Meaning that Mary must have been a sinner too…

Scripture says: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners…" Romans 5:19

Meaning that it was the disobedience of just the one man, as opposed to the first man and woman, that many were made sinners.

Those who believe that Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner:

Could it possibly be wrong to interpret Romans 3 to include the woman Mary, the new Eve of creation, as a sinner, if it’s wrong to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 by excluding the first woman from Romans 5?

---

This is totally stupid quote.

It is rear to hear that Good things come from bad.

She is pure clean mother of our **Lord Jesus Christ **and she is blessed among women as said by Archangel Gabriel.

You poor stupid respect her.

 

[rinnie]

You and I, perhaps, but not someone who is spiritually blind. According to Scriptures all we can do is pray God opens their heart and mind to understanding.

May I ask you a question? You seem to think that because some people error in their understanding of Scriptures we need a human authority to give us the accurate meaning and then the problem becomes non-existant,

but their are Catholics who sometimes miss understand Catholic teaching as well, and some who reject parts of Catholic dogma…

So how is having the pope an advantage for you? The Bible is just as clearly written as the popes excathedral statements and still both can be rejected or misunderstood.

Here is the answer in as simple terms as I can master. Jesus said to his Apostles I must leave you so that I can send the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT who will lead you into all truth.

Jesus send the ADVOCATE on the day of Pentecost and he breathed on the Aposltes and OPENED THIER MINDS to the truth.

Now do you believe that this happened Ginger. You either to or you don’t. You either reject Gods word or you accept it.

If you accept it, then you believe that when GOD told the Apostles when they speak in his name he spoke the truth,

Now the good part, people accuse us of Listening to a MAN the POPE. But what amazes me the most is you guys give him more POWER then we even do. See here is why!!

God said that when they speak in HIS name they CANNOT lie, they MUST speak the truth. We call that Papal infalibility or Ex Cathedra. Now GOD said this. You guys have 2 choices.

You either ACCEPT the word of God and believe as GOD says when they speak in his name it comes straight from him. OR they CLAIM they speak in his name and they OVERPOWER GOD. Whats it going to be.

Because we as CATHOLICS KNOW no one can overpower GOD. HE says what he means. And if a POPE or BISHOPS in authority with him speak in GODS VOICE its really GOD.

Now can your Preacher claim to speak in the voice of GOD yes or no?

THat is what having the ADVANTAGE of the POPE is for US.

Next please do not blame ME or others in the CHURCH for the people who refuse to live out their faith.

Because when Catholics deny the truth does that make it not the truth. If so then Judas betraying Jesus is the fault of Jesus and the other Apostles also. And makes their truth not valid then because Judas refused to accept it

SO THINK GINGER, Please think what you are saying, and please do not try to tell us our faith when you have no idea what Sacred Tradition is, simply because if you do not have the Catholic Church you will not find it.

 

[rinnie]

Excuse me, but the documents cited as proofs are forgeries. Where is the real evidence? And if it exists, why bring up forgeries to support your claims?

Come back with real evidence and please refrain from mean-spirited accusations.
I quoted directly from Catholic info that plainly states the belief is founded in falsified documents:

"**The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal **treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, **and in a spurious letter **attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

Ginger do you want PROOF! Please read the word of GOD then. GO TO THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH IS THE PILAR OF ALL TRUTH. Not your opinion or mine or anyones.

THE HOLY SPIRIT guides us into all truth. we just must choose to open our eyes our ears and listen and see.

 

[CopticChristian]

You and I, perhaps, but not someone who is spiritually blind. According to Scriptures all we can do is pray God opens their heart and mind to understanding.

May I ask you a question? You seem to think that because some people error in their understanding of Scriptures we need a human authority to give us the accurate meaning and then the problem becomes non-existant,

but their are Catholics who sometimes miss understand Catholic teaching as well, and some who reject parts of Catholic dogma…

So how is having the pope an advantage for you? The Bible is just as clearly written as the popes excathedral statements and still both can be rejected or misunderstood.

So clear that since 1600 there have been the evolution into Protestant thought that includes the Jehovah Witness, 7th Day Adventist, Mormon, Oneness Pentacostal and more. The Catholic Church has seen some division but not quite like these and the divisions are seen as over issues that do not deny the Eucharist and other Sacraments.