Not the same God?

[PRmerger]

What does one do when the Sacred Scripture simply does not present a clear teaching on some matter of crucial importance?

Pax

This is an interesting question, and one I’d posed on another thread a month ago.

It does seem that, as Scripture does not indicate how one is to discern truth if no clear teaching is presented, there is great inconsistency among our non-Catholic Christian brethren.

For example, sometimes the paradigm is proclaimed, “If Scripture is silent, then we must be silent!” (i.e. no instruments in church worship services).

Yet the same pastor will maintain, “Scripture does not address this, so it is forbidden” (i.e praying to Mary, perhaps).

YET! Also! The same pastor on another issue will proffer, “Scripture does not address this, so it is allowed!” (i.e. contraception, perhaps).

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Apostolic Succession and Roman Primacy Con’t

Christ promised to be with His Apostles to the end of time and I showed in my previous post that this could not have meant merely to the end of their earthly lives and certainly not in the apostolic deposit as contained in the bible. In the fifth chapter of I Peter, St. Peter refers to the elders of the Church as his fellow shepherds. This indicates that St. Peter considered his own Christ-given pastoral ministry to be handed on to the next generation. In other words the next generation of elders shared the ministry which Christ had given St. Peter. In the very earliest days of the Church the different elders appointed by the Apostles appeared to have ruled the church as a body, but every committee needs a chairman and it was not long before one elder of each city emerged as the leader of a whole group of elders. As SS. Peter and Paul had founded the church as Rome, and Rome was the centre of the empire, the entire Church very quickly came to recognise that amongst the chief shepherds of the different cities, there was one who had a primary place and that was the Bishop of Rome.

The writings of the ECF’s show that the Roman Church emerged very early as a natural leader of the whole Church and that her leadership was exercised with authority over the other churches. St. Clement, only thirty years after the death of St. Peter, wrote a letter to the Corinthian church correcting their rebellion and gently calling them to submission to their proper church authorities. He says to the Corinthians, “you will give us great joy and gladness if you render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit…according to the entreaty we have made for peace and concord in this letter”. Ignatius of Antioch who writes about the year 115 AD calls the Roman church, “the one which has the chief seat in the place of the district of the Romans…worthy in purity having the chief place in love…”. Through the second century there is mounting evidence which records how the different church leaders around the empire consistently consulted Rome respecting rulings regarding the faith and pastoral practice of the Church. For example, St. Polycarp comes to Rome to consult with Pope Anicletus about the date of Easter. Then around 180 AD Irenaeus, a bishop in France, sums up the attitude about the Roman church thus:

" We refute those who hold unauthorised assemblies…by pointing to the tradition of the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul. This tradition the church has from the Apostles, and this faith has been proclaimed to all men, and has come down to our own day through the succession of bishops for this church has a postion of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome, for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world" (Adv. Heres. 3).

The witness to the primacy of the Church of Rome is universal in the very earliest years of the Church and it is always based upon the fact that the leaders of the Roman Church inherited their authority from SS. Peter and Paul. From North Africa, Tertullian sums up the view, writing around the same time as Irenaeus. He says:

“Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity…run through the apostolic Churches in which the very seats of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to their voices and recalling the faces of each…if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church on which the Apostles poured their whoel doctrine along with with their blood” (*De Praescriptione *Haereticorum, 32).

By the mid 200’s St. Cyprian of Carthage writes:

" He (Jesus) builds his Church on him (Peter), and to him he gives his sheep to be fed: and although he confers an equal power on all the apostles, yet he has appointed one throne and by his authority has ordained the source and principle of unity…the primacy is Peter’s…if a man does not hold this unity of Peter does he believe himself to hold the faith? If a man deserts the throne of Peter, on whom the Church is founded is he confident that he is in the Church" (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, 4-7).

If this witness is not incontrovertible evidence that the Church of Rome is not the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter, then I do not know what is.

From the very earliest times we observe that Christians around the world believed that the Roman Church exercised a primacy amongst the churches and that the leader of the Roman Church was seen as the authentic successor to St. Peter. However, hard it may be for some Protestants to accept, it is an historical fact that from the earliest days the entire Church looked to Rome for an authoritative voice of apostolic tradition.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

The Primacy of St. Peter

Whenever the twelve Apostles are listed in the Gospel St. Peter always comes first - and Judas last. St. Peter is the first Apostle to whom Christ appears after the Resurrection. He belongs to a small inner circle of select Apostles our Lord takes in to witness raising of Jarius’ daughter and the Transfiguration. St. Peter is the one who declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and Jesus says it was by special divine revelation St. Peter was able to make such a statement. Our Lord affirms St. Peter’s importance by commanding him to hold the faith and He gives him the special office of strenthening his brethren in their belief.

The most compelling N.T. evidence for St. Peter’s leadership role is in the first chapters of the Acts. There, in those weeks of waiting between the Resurrection and Pentecost, St. Peter undoubtedly takes charge. Then as the N.T. Church is founded at Pentecost, it is St. Peter who is the primary preacher. Later he goes on to receive special divine inspiration through a dream in which God tells him to open the glad tidings to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 7), it is St. Peter who concludes the debate and leads them to an inspired decision.

St. Peter’s leadership of the Church after the Resurrection was a fulfilment of a famous prophecy and command about St. Peter by Christ Himself. When St. Peter receives the divine revelation that Jesus is the Son of God (S. Matt. 16: 13-20), Jesus says that this truth, which the Apostle confesses, is the rock on which the Church will be founded. Then our Lord makes a pun on the name Peter - which means rock. Now owing to the fact that he was able to receive this fundamental revelation from God, St. Peter himself will be the rock on which the Church is established. That St. Peter, the leader of the Apostolic band, is the rock on which the Church is to founded, does not contradict but chimes with the teaching of St. Paul in Ephesians 2: 20, where he says the Church is built upon the foundation stone of the prophets and apostles.

In St. Matthew 16: 19 our Lord says to St. Peter, “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”. As I stated previously, the Apostles would have been completely familiar with the O.T. background. They knew the keys symbolised royal authority, they knew Christ was referring to the passage in Isaiah, and they comprehended quite clearly what many Protestant either refuse of fail to grasp, namely that Christ, in granting the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter, is appointing him as the prime minister of His kingdom. As God gave the prime minister Eliakim in Isaiah the authority of the king - symbolised by the keys - so St. Peter was being specially appointed and chosen by Christ Himself to excercise authority on earth.

A fanciful Catholic interpretation in whch they alone make such a link? Allow me to quote a few Protestant scholars concerning this link between St. Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22. F.F. Bruce, a Brethren chap, says, “What about the keys of the kingdom? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward…they were a badge of authority entrusted to him”. Mr. Bruce then refers to the passage in Isaiah 22 and says, “So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would, so to speak, chief steward” (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Inter Varsity Press, 1983, pp. 143-144) - That mus have raised a few eyebrows among Mr. Bruce’s Brethren friends!. The link between the two passages is also attested by the Anglican scholar R.T. France who writes about St. Matthew 16, “Isaiah 22: 22 is generally regarded as the O.T. background to the metaphor of the keys here” (Matthew, Evangelist and Teacher, Zondervan, 1989, p. 274). Finally, J. Jeremias says, “the keys of the kingdom are not different from the keys of David…handing over the keys does not imply appointing a porter…handing over the keys implies appointment of full authority” (qouting from G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the N.T., 10 Vols, (Eerdmans, 1968, Vol. 3 pp749-50). Even my old Authorised Version, in a marginal reference, notes this link and says that the passage in St. Matthew ought to be compared with Isaiah 22: 22.

As regards Petrine passage itself - “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” - much of the heated discussion concerning the Greek words* petros* and petra is a red herring because our Lord spoke in the Aramaic tongue, not the Greek. Aramaic does not have two words for ‘big rock’ and ‘little rock’. Nor does it distinguish between the masculine and feminine form. It only has one word - kephas, thus in Aramaic the two words are interchangeable. In the actual conversation in Aramaic our Lord had to have said, “You are rock (kepha) and on this rock (kepha) I will build my Church”.

The best Catholic statements take this passage at face value and say that our Lord was establishing St. Peter as the foundation of His Church. Certainly the text is foundational (no pun intended), but I do not believe that it is the whole edifice, but more about that in my next post, dear friend.

To be continued.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[awantz]

My husband is Catholic and I am a non-denominational Christian, We serve the same God. I don’t think we would’ve got married otherwise. Also, you’d think his priest and/or my pastor would’ve warned us, otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

My husband is Catholic and I am a non-denominational Christian, We serve the same God. I don’t think we would’ve got married otherwise. Also, you’d think his priest and/or my pastor would’ve warned us, otherwise.

Yes, it’s the same God for Catholics as non-denominational Christians.

But what are your beliefs regarding what this God has revealed?

For example, does baptism save you, or is it just an ordinance?
Is the pope the vicar of Christ, or is he the anti-Christ?
Can women be ordained? Or can only men be priests?
Can you divorce and remarry? Or is this adultery?
Will we be Raptured?
Is there a hell?
Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ?

etc etc etc

 

[illusion_buster]

If all gods were the same God, then God would have no need to say “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” After all, an ancient Egyptian worshiping Ra was still worshiping God.

I believe the gods spoken above were that of lesser forms like animals or inert statues which have no power whatsoever. The One God worshipped by the Jews and islam was the same creator God of Abraham. The ‘unknown’ invisable one god of egypt is also the One true God. The pharaoh of the time came to believe in a one and invisable God and forsaked all fashioned idols to worship Him alone. In our time the ‘idols’ would be represented by such things as sport, worldly goods, your job, your timetable, etc etc. Not saying that these things are bad in them selves, but if that is what you live for than that is an idol. But if the one invisible God is put first (as Jesus taught in the ‘our Father’ and prior, the 1st commandment), then those things are unlikely to become idols. God is God for all and He speaks directly to the hearts of His creation. So, who really knows where a person REALLY is under God. Being “Catholic”, is not a free pass into heaven.

 

[illusion_buster]

The most compelling N.T. evidence for St. Peter’s leadership role is in the first chapters of the Acts. There, in those weeks of waiting between the Resurrection and Pentecost, St. Peter undoubtedly takes charge. Then as the N.T. Church is founded at Pentecost, it is St. Peter who is the primary preacher. Later he goes on to receive special divine inspiration through a dream in which God tells him to open the glad tidings to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 7), it is St. Peter who concludes the debate and leads them to an inspired decision.

Below is a quote from a historian…
It’s hard to know, in all the cases, who the earliest group members were. We know a few names largely from the New Testament itself. In Jerusalem, James the brother of Jesus seems to have been the leader. There was a woman by the name of Mary in the Jerusalem congregation as well as Peter and some of the other original apostles of Jesus. Beyond that we know very few names. There were just small conclaves of people holding on tightly to their new beliefs and expectations while at the same time continuing in their Jewish tradition.

And…If Peter was definately ‘in charge’, why did the roman spies inform their superiors that “James, the brother of Jesus” quote unquote led the followers of Jesus after His death. And don’t forget, it was Mary Magdelaine to whom Jesus significantly first revealed Himself. In some writings (understandably branded heretical) Mary was considered an apostle. Of course any truth of this idea would be shunned. In roman offical papers and accounts, Peter was head of a group in Rome and James was in charge of the Jerusalem group. The 12 Apostles were in fact scattered throughout the country and outlining areas preaching their own understanding of Christs messege. All this is quite reseachable for those who want to know the Truth.

 

[oldcatdave]

What do you mean that an ancient Egyptian worshiping Ra is worshiping God? He was not worshiping the true God, he was worshiping a pagan demonic god. My goodness the nonsense people still believe is just about beyond belief.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

Even if one were to agree with your ‘assumption’ (pun intended) of Mary being the ark of the new covenant, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. **Jesus would not **do any less for His Blessed Mother.

On a side note by what authority were you given the right to declare what Jesus would or would not do?

Answer me this - Why would Jesus not do anything less for Joseph?

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

Yet another non sequitur preceded by a faulty premise.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Paul also speaks of a man “who did me much harm.” (2 Tim 4:14) Using the above logic wouldn’t it follow that Mary also did Paul much harm?

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

The verse proclaims after being raised “They went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Notice it doesn’t say they were assumed into heaven.

Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Nothing in Scripture precludes you or I from running a one minute mile or leaping over the Sear’s tower either.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! Every believer should look forward to this glorious event. Nevertheless, the verse doesn’t support your thesis statement.

Rev. 12:1 - **we see **Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

Respectfully the error of this statement is found in the double use of the phrase * “we see”* Rev 12:1 isn’t speaking about Mary, but rather of the nation of Israel.

In *The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook *Theologian John Walvoord writes:

*The statement that [the woman] is clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet (Rev 12:1) is an allusion to Joseph’s dream in which he saw the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down to him (Gen. 37:9). The sun and the moon in this context refer to Jacob and Rachel, the forebearers of Israel. The woman is also said to have a crown of twelve stars on her head (v. 1). In Joseph’s dream also the stars, or the sons of Israel, are intended with the twelfth star, including Joseph himself who was not in the dream as such. *

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition.

Yes, he does, as the Apostles for a time communicated their teachings orally until they could be written down.

Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven.

This statement couldn’t be farther from the truth, as there isn’t a shred of biblical or patristic testimony for the Assumption of Mary. Not only was a supposed assumption of Mary completely unknown to the early church, the seeds of this latter day teaching didn’t even begin to “develop” until some 500 years after Mary’s death.

While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
source: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

Yet another *argumentum ad ignorantiam * “argument to ignorance” fallacy.

For example, using this logic it can be ‘assumed’ that Amelia Earhart, Glenn Miller, D.B. Cooper, and Jimmy Hoffa, among others, were assumed body and soul into heaven since their “bones were never claimed.”

 

[awantz]

Yes, it’s the same God for Catholics as non-denominational Christians.

But what are your beliefs regarding what this God has revealed?

For example, does baptism save you, or is it just an ordinance?
Is the pope the vicar of Christ, or is he the anti-Christ?
Can women be ordained? Or can only men be priests?
Can you divorce and remarry? Or is this adultery?
Will we be Raptured?
Is there a hell?
Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ?

etc etc etc

As for what I believe, baptism is just an ordinance, the pope is not the anti-Christ, women can be ordained to certain positions in the church, but only men can be priests, divorce and remarry depends on the situation, we will be raptured, there is a hell, and the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

What are the “conflicting interpretations” of "infallibly decisive declarations"of which you speak? There are certainly dissidents within the Church that rebel and who either reject the official teaching of the Church or place their own interpretation or understanding above that of the Church’s, but such persons do not speak in any authoritative capacity for the whole Church. Alas, individual Catholics can abandon the truth and fall into error and even into sin.

Of course there are differences among the learned theologians but that has never been disallowed, with the caveat that these differences do not amount to blatant unbelief or a repudiation of the fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

When Christ established His Church upon St. Peter He said that “the gates of hades” would not prevail against it (S. Matt. 16: 18). However the forces of evil and of error would have prevailed against the Church had she not possessed the Charism of Infallibility. He sent His Church to teach in His name, and said, “He who hears you hears me” (S. Lk. 10: 16), and again, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will condemned” (S. Mk. 16: 16) Now, my dear brother, our Lord could not order men to believe the Church, with their very salvation at stake, and yet not guarantee His Church against the possibility of leading them into pernicious errors quite opposed to His holy doctrine. Moreover, when He commissioned the Church to go and teach all the nations, He promised to be with her until the end of the world (S. Matt. 28: 20), and He sent His Holy Spirit to keep her as the “pillar and ground of truth”. Surely all this precludes the possibility of a departure from the revealed truth; or, in other words, it constitutes a pledge of perpetual infallibility.

True, the non-Catholic churches believe the same fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy, but they do not all interpret them in the same way. For example, all believe in Baptism, but there is fundamental disagreement over what that Sacrament accomplishes and who should be its recipients. Catholics and High Anglicans believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but this biblical teaching is deemed heretical and “Romanist” by Presybyterian and Baptist churches and is said to invariably lead to a nominal form of religious profession, devoid of any true faith. Now this is by no means some peripheral issue since concerns the most important matter of a man’s salvation. Moreover, for all of the “common credal and doctrinal heritage”, the Protestant churches remain hopelessly divided and with, in the words of the late Anglican Evangelical John Stott, “a pathological tendency to divide”. Correct if I am wrong, but are not Presbyterians known in Protestant circles as the “split P’s” because of all the factions created over their divergent interpretations of the bible. Thus doctrinal and moral confusion is the order of the day with each of the many denominations interpreting the bible (or completely disregarding it as an authority at all for all intents and purposes) according to their own theological predilections. However, this is surely what is to be expected where the Reformation principle of sola scriptura reigns supreme. Without an objective, historical and universal interpretative authority to correctly ascertain the meaning of God’s truth, we truly are all at sea, dear friend.

As I remarked earlier infallibilty is a charism given to the Church by its founder who promised to be with His Church until the end of time, first with the Apostles and then with their successors. This is what I explained at great length yesterday. The infalliblity of the Church emerges from the character of God, so just as we would infer from the justice of God that any deception by Him is inconceivable, so we may infer from God’s love for His Church and His high purposes for it that it is likewise inconceivable that he should establish it and then leave it to fall into error. Thus a visible and unerring guide is seen as an inevitable consequence of the character and purposes of God.

Protestantism is essentially restorationist, for every one of the numerous denominations was originally founded by some chap who claimed that he was simply restoring the “primitive Church and purity of doctrine” of the first century of the Christian era. Protestants claim that they restore the primitive Church; Anglican, the Church of the first five centuries; Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Church of the first eight centuries. However, what they all have in common is that they are all restorationist, differing only as to how much they claim to have actually restored.

The Reformers only rediscovered what they wanted to rediscover; they came to the bible with a novel pre-existing theological framework, imposed it upon the bible and called this the “rediscovered truths” of primitive Christianity. Sacred Scripture was written by the Church for the Church and within the Church. It was the Church who determined over a period of time what books were to form part of the canon (more about that tommorow). The Church was first and the bible emerged from the Church - not the other way around. The Holy Spirit inspired the Church first at Pentecost, and by the leaders of the Church and for the Church’s needs the Bible was written. Therefore the Catholic Church maintains that the Church is the proper authentic interpreter of God’s written word today.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Dear kelman,

Please note that my above post is a response to your #295.

Goodbye for now.

Kind regards,

Portrait

Pax

 

[illusion_buster]

how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints?

Being an artist I can answer this pivotal question quite easily with a example: 100 painters wanted to paint the grande canyon…all took their eazels and set up at what seemed the best most complete view. After some time, some artists wanted more arm room so they moved further to the left & the right. Eventually, some moved even out of sight. At the end of the project, all of the paintings were presented. They were so diverse that it was questioned that they were in fact OF the grande canyon. Other than those painting at the same position or close to, no paintings were alike. The painters started bickering amoungst themselves with the inital group declaring that the only paintings depicting the real grande canyon where those painted from the original designated spot, and that all the others were invalid. BUT…they were all definately of the grand canyon - THAT WAS THE TRUTH! Each group depicted a new VIEWPOINT but it was still the same Grand Canyon. The subject or the TRUTH was the same. Viewpoint and Truth are NOT the same thing but a interpretation of the same thing. The interpretation ISN’T the TRUTH the SUBJECT is the truth. With some paintings, the canyon walls were orange while others were purple… a most opposite interpretation. But BOTH TRUE. I think we are all missing this.

 

[PRmerger]

The interpretation ISN’T the TRUTH the SUBJECT is the truth. With some paintings, the canyon walls were orange while others were purple… a most opposite interpretation. But BOTH TRUE. I think we are all missing this.

Colors are not “opposite”, illusion.

What’s “opposite” are these positions:

The pope is the anti-Christ.
The pope is the vicar of Christ.

Are you saying that both of these can be true at the same time?

 

[PRmerger]

Even if one were to agree with your ‘assumption’ (pun intended) of Mary being the ark of the new covenant, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

You’re saying that Elijah could be assumed into heaven, but Mary can’t?

Why?

And are you of the belief that you’re going to be Raptured? (As defined here)

On a side note by what authority were you given the right to declare what Jesus would or would not do?

This is a curious question.

Are you of the position that the WWJD paradigm is unbiblical? Do you object to that question when it’s posed by members of your church (and I am 100% certain that this is something that has been professed by someone in your church, and I am about 75% sure that it’s been offered as a question by you–maybe to your children, maybe in your evangelization at work…)

Answer me this - Why would Jesus not do anything less for Joseph?

Because St. Joseph was not the ark of the covenant.

But, again, perhaps He did. I dunno. The Bible is silent on this, no?

And Catholic teaching is that an assumption is the ideal for all of humanity. It’s possible for all of us!

Paul also speaks of a man “who did me much harm.” (2 Tim 4:14) Using the above logic wouldn’t it follow that Mary also did Paul much harm?

Huh?

The verse proclaims after being raised “They went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Notice it doesn’t say they were assumed into heaven.

And what do you think happened to them after they appeared to many? Do you think they died again? Do you think they went to hell? Or maybe purgatory?

Or did they get taken back to heaven? That is, they were ASSUMED into heaven, yes?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Nothing in Scripture precludes you or I from running a one minute mile or leaping over the Sear’s tower either.

So is your position that if it’s not mentioned in Scripture it’s prohibited?

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! Every believer should look forward to this glorious event. Nevertheless, the verse doesn’t support your thesis statement.

So everyone else can be assumed into heaven, but the Mother of the Lord can’t?

Respectfully the error of this statement is found in the double use of the phrase * “we see*” Rev 12:1 isn’t speaking about Mary, but rather of the nation of Israel.

Perhaps it refers to both, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, he does, as the Apostles for a time communicated their teachings orally until they could be written down.

If you could provide a verse that says that the Apostles stopped communicating their teachings after they were written down that would be helpful. Book, chapter and verse, please.

Or that everything they communicated was put to writ, that would be acceptable too.

 

[PRmerger]

This statement couldn’t be farther from the truth, as there isn’t a shred of biblical or patristic testimony for the Assumption of Mary. Not only was a supposed assumption of Mary completely unknown to the early church,

Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
Patristic Testimonies:

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

“It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption** (ante A.D. 650).**

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733).

“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.” John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751).

“It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.” John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741),** (ante A.D. 749).**

“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself.” Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda (ante A.D. 795).

“[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.” Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).
**
“God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.” Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).
**
“[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the place of reception.” Timotheus of Jerusalem** (8th Century). **
source

 

[PRmerger]

the seeds of this latter day teaching didn’t even begin to “develop” until some 500 years after Mary’s death.

This is another curious proposition, Samson.

You do know that the Trinity wasn’t defined until centuries after the death of the apostles?

And that the canon of Scripture–your Holy Bible–which was discerned for you by Catholic bishops, wasn’t defined until the 4th century?

Are you saying that if it wasn’t present on the day of Pentecost that we ought not invest our time and energy in it?

Yet another *argumentum ad ignorantiam * “argument to ignorance” fallacy.

For example, using this logic it can be ‘assumed’ that Amelia Earhart, Glenn Miller, D.B. Cooper, and Jimmy Hoffa, among others, were assumed body and soul into heaven since their “bones were never claimed.”

Perhaps taken by itself, not having the bones of Mary as relics would not be a convincing argument.

But taken in the context of the Scriptural evidence, the patristic testimonies, the authority of the Church, the belief that everyone else can be raptured but not Mary, well, that’s just another nail in the coffin for those who object to the Assumption of Mary.

 

[illusion_buster]

Colors are not “opposite”, illusion

No! They aren’t. But some people think they are. Which is the point.

 

[illusion_buster]

What’s “opposite” are these positions:

The question is whether God see all of them as valid worship of Himself?