One of my last issues

[bengal_fan]

Théodred:

Wow. Way to yank that out of context. You would have Saint Paul deny the Resurrection of the dead? That should go into the Quoting Scripture Out of Context Hall of Fame! Saint Paul is obviously talking about our bodies being transformed into “incorruptable” resurrected bodies.

lol . i would say the same thing.

 

[Theodred]

From a browns-fan to bengal-fan… if this is the last big hurdle for you… welcome home!

 

[bengal_fan]

Théodred:

From a browns-fan to bengal-fan… if this is the last big hurdle for you… welcome home!

lol, thanks david. good name by the way

i find it humorous also that we are both ohio football team fans yet neither of us live in ohio.

 

[Ahimsa]

bengal_fan:

i wonder if Thomas was late for his own funeral?!!

Notice that Thomas is always wanting to see something physical.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

mtr01:

Interesting.
I mean after all, our Lord Jesus Himself ascended to heaven in a glorified body. Are you suggesting he can’t be in the Kingdom of Heaven because of his bodily resurrection?

Correct and Jesus ate food to prove it, as far a I know a ghost doesn’t eat food.

 

[Theodred]

bengal_fan:

i find it humorous also that we are both ohio football team fans yet neither of us live in ohio.

For me, it’s the Babylonian exile. I suffer in reparation for all those disparaging things I said in my youth about Indiana’s highway patrol. :crying:

 

[bengal_fan]

Ahimsa:

Notice that Thomas is always wanting to see something physical.

he’s still saint thomas. all the other apostles got to see something physical, why wouldn’t we expect him to doubt until he did as well? i get your point though and it’s a good one. i am not necessarily looking for something physical, just something believable. (not that there aren’t things that could be believable, they just haven’t been put together in my head yet.)

 

[gardenswithkids]

I finally understood the Assumption when my own mother became sick to the point of death. I loved her very much and I just wanted to scoop her into my arms and make her better. If I, a sinner, had such instinct for my own mother, how much more love would Jesus have had for His mother? He could scoop her up into His arms and make it all better because He was God , and Catholics call that the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

bengal_fan:

my question is where did the early church fathers teach the bodily assumption? the earliest quote is from 377a.d. one of my issues is the infallibility of the church because of this. i want to believe it. i can find early evidence for everything (almost but i don’t want to deal with those issues right now) except the assumption. it’s not for another 300 years that we hear any mention of this in writing.

Bengal Fan,

Hey, this may not help much, but I’d like to offer a suggestion. Just because you are having a hard time finding earlier “Assumption” qoutes does not mean they don’ exist. And even if they don’t exist, then that in itself is not a good reason to disbelieve the doctrine. In fact, the 4th - 7th century references to it are a good indication that it, like other doctrines, may be (is?) Apostolic in origin.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception comes to mind. Sure, there is a Scriptural warrant for it (as there is for the Assumption), and I assume you believe that. But the cup that holds that doctrine is not exactly brimming over with early statements to support it. Sure, there are more and better for the Imm. Conc. but I think you get what I’m saying.

You know there is a Scriptural warrant for the Bodily Assumption, like there is for the Immaculate Conception. I assume (maybe wrongly?) that you believe the Immaculate Conception, and therefore see Scripture in light of that belief. Why not do the same for the Bodily Assumption?

 

[serendipity]

Thanks for asking the question, Bengal, because I have learned much here too from this dialogue.

Maybe I misunderstood your earlier message, but if you are being dissuaded by the fact that you can’t find written sources before the third or fourth century, I would not be so dismayed. The earliest manuscrpits from books of the Bible are that young too. I think there are fragments from the second century or a little earlier, but limited written work survived from before that time period. There was much burning of Christian work in the early Roman empire.

With the apparitions thought I would think at places like Fatima, (and I am sure I am going out on a limb here and sound like I am about five years old), where Mary implored people to pray the rosary, than perhaps she would have told them that the glorious mysteries were a fallacy or inaccurate, if they were not true.

 

[CatholicCrusade]

bengal_fan:

yes it does help a little. but all other matrydoms were recorded. Jesus’ ascension was plainly recorded. why not the same with Mary’s assumption?

You may notice that in the Holy Scriptures Our Lady seems to take a back seat, considering the sorts of things written of Her after the first few centuries. That seems to be quite realistic to me, since when you have a choice to write about the Incarnation, God Himself, coming to earth and all He did, the greatest of His Mother seems to be out-shined, and rightfully so, since Christ is God, and Our Lady, even though free from sin, is not God.

After the first few centuries, and much of the teachings and reflections upon Christ, His Passion, the Incarnation, the Blessed Trinity, etc. had been hashed-out, the teachings on the Blessed Virgin seemed to be fitting to address next.

Now, as far as it being accurately and clearly recorded in the Bible (or anywhere for that matter), just read the last verse of St. John’s Gospel (xxi. 25): “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

If Christ did and said such a great number of things, there is no possible way all of it could be recorded, even some of the most basic teachings, neither in merely the Bible nor in the first three centuries. If that is the case, why would it be any different for the Blessed Virgin, especially considering what I said above: how the doctrines and details around the life of Christ are the first matter of buisness, so to speak, for the early Church.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

mtr01:

Interesting. You wouldn’t happen to be a latter day Sadducee who denies the resurrection, would you?

I mean after all, our Lord Jesus Himself ascended to heaven in a glorified body. Are you suggesting he can’t be in the Kingdom of Heaven because of his bodily resurrection?

Hi Mtr. Jesus body is a glorified body in the kingdom of heaven.I am not denying the resurection. Do we take our flesh and blood with us when we die? Dont our bodies become like Jesus glorified body,[spiritual bodies]. God Bless

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Stephen-Maguire:

Correct and Jesus ate food to prove it, as far a I know a ghost doesn’t eat food.

Hi Stephen , Jesus body was incoruptable for it was without sin. Can we say the same .Thats why our flesh dies. God Bless.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Stephen-Maguire:

Correct and Jesus ate food to prove it, as far a I know a ghost doesn’t eat food.

Hi Stephen, Dont tell Space Ghost that. Im sure he doesnt believe what your saying. God Bless

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bengal_fan,

You might also consider that refutation of the heresies regarding the Blessed Trinity are what the early Church was busy writing about. As such, I would not expect much written about Mary, as the Church was still uncertain regarding many doctrines about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

For instance, towards the middle of the fourth century, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and others, while admitting the Divinity of Jesus, denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It think it was a matter of placing “first things first.”

We believe it to be oral tradition (much as many OT accounts lasted as only oral tradition for many centuries). It was readily accepted universally in the Church as a feast day, which points to it being an existing tradition and not a novelty. It’s not likely that the early Church would have so readily accepted celebration of a feast day commemorating Mary’s bodily assumption if it were a novel notion. In the history of Christianity, there were more disputes about the contents of the Bible and Jesus than about Mary’s bodily assumption. Remember, even the date of Easter was hotly disputed by the early Church. They didn’t cotton much for novelties in the liturgy back in those days. It’s reasonable to believe it to have been tradition, even if we have no extant written evidence of it until the *Panarion *of Epiphanus in the fourth century (and Epiphanus doesn’t seem to be referring to something new, but instead explaining possible details of something already well accepted by his audience).

That nobody ever wrote about Mary’s assumption in the first three centuries is unlikely, but that there was not much written is reasonable given the Christological controversies in the first four centuries and beyond. That we have nothing *extant *could be due to the lesser emphasis of such teachings as compared to settling doctrinal issues regarding Christology and theology of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DianJo]

Something else you might consider:

Except for the gospels (which is the story of Jesus’ life), the other books in the New Testament, especially Paul’s letters, were written to address certain cities/groups/churches to explain certain teachings that had come into question, ex., In Corinthians he admonishes the people about eating and drinking to excess at the communion meal. He goes on explain about the Eucharist and how it should be received, etc. The topics of instruction he wrote about were determined by the amount of confusion"/mis-
interpretation involved.

It’s often thought that if something is not taught in the bible then it’s not important. We by no means have all of Paul’s (or anybody else’s) writings. In 3 years of travel and conversions, do you think that all he wrote was what we have in the bible? Surely, with all confusion and misunderstanding out there about this new religion, he would have had to write more than what we have preserved in the bible.

My point is, most things taught in the bible were things being “disputed” or misunderstood. Before the canon was formally proclaimed, there was no bible (as we have now). Paul’s instructional letters were being circulated and they had the Old Testament so all the new teaching of this new religion was being taught by word of mouth. The teaching of the Assumption of Mary was taught by the Apostles and was believed by the people they taught. The fact that there were no writings about it probably means that there was no dispute about it. No one had a problem with it. It was something that was just known by the people from the beginning.

So, you might just consider the fact the there was just probably no questions or dispute about the Apostolic teaching of Assumption of Mary since it came from such a reliable source, therefore no instructional writings/letters.

Anyway, something to consider.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Stephen, Dont tell Space Ghost that. Im sure he doesnt believe what your saying. God Bless

He’s not a real ghost is he !!! :bigyikes: ??? are you spaceghost

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Stephen , Jesus body was incoruptable for it was without sin. Can we say the same .Thats why our flesh dies. God Bless.

True, and since Mary was full of grace then why is it so hard to say that she is in Heaven body and soul ?

Also Mary was the first Tabernacle, because that is where Christ first dwelt on earth.

 

[Catholic_Tom]

what is the earliest evidance of the feast of the assumption?

 

[Tom]

gardenswithkids:

I finally understood the Assumption when my own mother became sick to the point of death. I loved her very much and I just wanted to scoop her into my arms and make her better. If I, a sinner, had such instinct for my own mother, how much more love would Jesus have had for His mother? He could scoop her up into His arms and make it all better because He was God , and Catholics call that the Assumption of Mary.

Great thoughts. This is also a basis for my acceptance of her Immaculate conception. She was conceived without sin because the Son of God could do that for His mother. If it were my mother and it was in my power my mother would also have been conceived without sin, the difference is Jesus is God and has the power.