A few good points. Thank you once again for your thoughts. I agree with you about the salvation part.
As for what happened to some of the New Testament figures, Clement 1 writes about the death of Paul. He also mentions Peter’s martyr at the hands of Nero which was alluded by Christ in John 21:18. In Acts 12:2, James falls by Herod.
Polycarp and Clement were also martyred and that too was recorded…well besides the point, death was natural and martyrdom was uncommon but it was still natural…as for ascending into heaven, that was a really really rare event, very supernatural and definitely should be worth recording…but its never mentioned by anyone…in fact no one is ever recorded as a witness…if no one saw Mary ascend, then how did anyone know that she even ascended?
John, the last surviving apostle, who took care of Mary (probably the entire time of her supposed ascension) makes no mentions of that incredible historical miracle!
Both the early church fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius were direct disciples of John the apostle and probably got all their information from him through apostolic tradition…however, they record everything about Mary which can also be found in the Gospels but nothing about a coronation or ascension. Isn’t that strange??? Why would they leave that miracle out?
Whether the Gospels or the Epistles were written before or after 60AD, I’m sure a second ascension following Jesus’ should be worth recording especially from early church fathers if it was after 60AD.
Even Irenaeus who got his info from Polycarp continues to be silent about Mary’s ascension or coronation but mentions everything else about Mary. I’m sure you can agree with me that rather sounds unusual to say everything else but leave those events out of the picture. That sounds highly suspicious withholding that information.
If Mary was esteemed as a highly revered person of royalty, then why were people all silent on the issue of her ascension and coronation for the first 250 years but mention everything else about her? I hope you understand my perspective. I’m not a biblical scholar nor am I fluent with early church tradition but I’m just using plain reasoning and pointing something out…
going back to what I said about no one witnessing Mary’s ascension, is it possible that early church fathers got together and theologically assumed it happened to fill in the gaps?
I know what happened to Peter and Paul, but what happened to the other 10 Apostles? I know Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement and many other Christians were martyred. Christianity was illegal, with a penalty of death for those who would not renounce their faith.
Some of the writings of the early Church fathers were considered when the Church defined the canon of the New Testament, but were not chosen. While they give us insight into how early Christians practiced Christianity, they were not considered inerrant or God inspired, as scriptures were.
Would it be possible that all people of the first 250 years revered the mother of our Lord and it was such a common belief that no one saw a need to write about it? Would it be possible that the Church Christ built, gave the authority to bind and loose, be with until the consummation of the world, and send the Holy Spirit to protect, made an
inspired infallible decision?
The Bible tells us there are many things Christ, Himself, did that were not written about. If there are many things He did, that are not written about, why do we require all things about others be written about? Catholics believe God could protect His truth, even through an oral tradition just as He did His written word. As I tried to convey earlier, all things not written about are matters of faith and belief, but play no part in one’s salvation.
As you ask, “isn’t that strange?” Aren’t there many of God’s works strange, a mystery, to men?
Mary and the saints are examples of people who dedicated their lives totally to God. We should look at those examples, and honor them, as guides for ourselves, especially in a world so full of distractions. Which would make our journeys easier, learning and following on our own or learning and following the examples of pious people? Either way is acceptable, wouldn’t you agree?
Just as it would be wrong to “worship” Mary and the saints, it would be wrong to judge someone’s heart you saw praying, no matter where they knelt. Catholics have repeatedly said, we honor Mary we do not worship her, yet this discussion continues with Protestant objections to how it’s wrong. Why can’t Protestants believe what Catholics tell them? Why is it assumed we are doing what Protestants believe we are doing over what we say we are doing? Why the judgment and condemnations?
I didn’t mean to answer questions with questions, but what we believe is a matter of faith and faith is a gift from God. Demanding everything be written down, by Protestants, appears to be a double standard, in that no where is the belief of sola scriptura or private interpretation being acceptable is written about.
We believe in the Holy Spirit and we believe He leads us to believe that which He wants us to believe.
) found. So saying the devil has made us believe a lie is going against scripture.
