Question About Mary ??

[zcharry]

Let me try plugging some other doctrine into this line of reasoning:

"With all their writings, the Apostles would have undoubtedly documented such important (doctrines as the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union) as being essential to the faith. The fact that these words are not found in the Bible or the writings of the Apostles anywhere makes a better case that they are not true.

To say the concepts of a Triune God and that Christ had two natures in one person would just be passed orally does not play to reason. Believe what you will, but to say it is fact does not agree with the evidence in hand."

What we have, zcharry, is evidence in hand. We have the Divine Deposit of Faith handed down to us from the Apostles. In this we can have complete confidence, because we have complete confidence in Christ:

John 17:17-19
17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth."

Jesus consecrated HIs apostles in the truth, then directed them to fill their offices:

2 Tim 2:1-2
2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

This was done by consecration, and the laying on of hands, and has been done successively from the time of the Apostles until now. Those faithful men have born witness to the Apostolic teaching.

Triune is not used in the Bible and if you have a hang up on a word to explain an statement of Three persons in on then use don’t use the word. God clearly in Scripture states that he is three distinct persons and at the same time one. Triune is used to explain this concept.
It is much different then what we have with Mary.

 

[justasking4]

Luke alludes to it in Mary’s conversation with the Angel Gabriel. The Angel Gabriel announces to Mary (a young woman who is about to be married) that she is going to get pregnant. Most young women who are about to get married would say, "Duh-uh, no kidding - I don’t think I need a visitation from an angel to tell me that.

"

The issue is not the she was a virgin at the time of the angels visit but was she always a virgin. That can be seen in other scriptures that she was not.

Mary, however, responds with surprise, saying. “How can this be, since I know not man?” Even though she is just about to start living with Joseph.

For a married couple in this time period to take a vow of celibacy would have been wrong to do so. Part of God’s intent in marriage is to have children. In fact not to have them for a woman was considered disgraceful.To say that Mary was always a virgin goes against the plain teaching of Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

The Catholic Church canonized the Bible

.

The church did nothing to make the Scriptures inspired-inerrant. God used the church to discover His canon. The church was God’s instrument for this.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Triune is not used in the Bible and if you have a hang up on a word to explain an statement of Three persons in on then use don’t use the word. God clearly in Scripture states that he is three distinct persons and at the same time one. Triune is used to explain this concept.
It is much different then what we have with Mary.

Like the Trinity it is assumed or implied. In the Gospel of Luke, we have Gabriel addressed Mary as Full of Grace. This is the basis of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

In Biblical typology, Mary is the type of Ark of the New Covenant Jesus. How so? Because She carried the Word of God in her womb. In the OT, the Word of God (ten commandments), the cana, and Aaron’s staff was placed in the Ark. These three represented Law, the Bread from Heaven, and Priesthood.

Jesus is Lawgiver of the New Covenant, the High Priest, and Bread of Life. When Mary said, "Be it Done Unto Me, according to Your Word, the Holy Spirit overhshadowed her just like Ark.

Consider the parallels between these two passages from the Bible.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

 

[Zooey]

All the reformers believed in the Ever Virginity of the Theotokos. In fact this was never an issue until the 19th century when individuals with little or no education, some of them couldn’t actually read, started using KJV translations and declaring themselves qualified to interpret Scriptures for others.

Right up well into the middle of the 20th Century, Mary’s perpetual virginity was still being taught by many Protestant teachers. I know. I was there. It was part of my study of the Bible in the Methodist tradition.

It’s also interesting that the Scriptures list other parents for the so called brothers of our Lord. .

Yes, they do!! Every case that someone tries to point to, the parents’ names are given…One of the most interesting things about this to me, is that there are so many people in the Bible who we are never told the names of their parents. But when it comes that anyone may appear to the casual reader to have been related to Jesus, the Scriptures always make it completely clear that their father & mother’s names are given…Think maybe the Holy Spirit was all ready working, to cut the ground from under the dissenters?? I do!! I think that’s why it’s in there!!!

 

[LJN21]

The church did nothing to make the Scriptures inspired-inerrant. God used the church to discover His canon. The church was God’s instrument for this.

How do we know they are inspired?

 

[jmcrae]

For a married couple in this time period to take a vow of celibacy would have been wrong to do so. Part of God’s intent in marriage is to have children. In fact not to have them for a woman was considered disgraceful.To say that Mary was always a virgin goes against the plain teaching of Scripture.

Both the Essenes and the Nazarites, along with other groups, had celibate or “spiritual” marriages- this was actually very common, at the time. (Protestant Christianity went through a similar phase in the early 1800s with the Shakers and other Protestant groups that had celibate marriages, in imitation of Mary and Joseph. The idea that they were not celibate is actually very, very recent, even within Protestantism.)

 

[justasking4]

These doctrines especially the Assumption is not new. They were believed from the beginning at the time of death at Mary. History shows it.

Do you have the documentation for this? Do you have some first century documents that shows this?

You just want to ignore history like the rest of the Protestant Christians.

What if i were to say to you the Thomas ascended into heaven to. Since we don’t have his bones, that must mean he did ascend into heaven. Would you accept that?

 

[Mannyfit75]

The church did nothing to make the Scriptures inspired-inerrant. God used the church to discover His canon. The church was God’s instrument for this.

Yes the Church did. 1 Tim 3:15, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the house of God, the Church.

The Scripture was orally given to Moses, and by the time of Jesus Christ, there were scrolls scattered in Judea. Some of the books were written in Hebrew and another written in Greek in Septuagint written by Helenistic Jews. There was no close canon of Scripture at time.

By the start of Christianity, the Gospel was preached orally. In those days there were Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians. The Sadducees were like the Sola Scriptura of their time because they deny the Resurrection and such. As the years pass and more Gentile converted into Christianity, the Scripture which was only the OT were used in the liturgical worship.

After the destruction of the Temple, the Jews gather in Jamnia and condemned Christianity, denied Jesus is the Messiah, nullified the Septuagint. Yet the Christian Church continue to use it.

By the Third Century, Pope Damascus issued an order to St. Jerome who translated Bible into Latin. They also added 27 NT books, the 4 Gospels and the Epistles, Revelations. In the Local Council, Council of Carthage a list of Canon of Scripture was listed to included all 73 Biblical Books. This list was again used in the Council of Hippo, then in the Ecunemical Council in Florence where representatives from the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church agreed one set of Biblical Canon in 1431, 100 yrs before the Reformation.

It was not until the Reformation that 7 Deutrocanonical Books were put into the appendix in the Protestant Bible. Luther doubted some Epistles like Letter of James, Revelations, Jude, and others were not inspired. I believe 50 yrs later, the Protestant remove the 7 Deutrocanonical Books.

The Catholic Bible has 46 OT and 27 NT, 73 Books altogether.

While the Protestant Bible only have 39 OT, and 27 OT, 66 Books altogether.

 

[justasking4]

The source was rejected but not the assumption of Mary or Dormition of Mary.

I would think this would cause you some concern. Here is a document that the church rejects as being false but uses it to build a doctrine that Mary was assumed into heaven because this false “gospel” says she did. This in itself is enough to reject this claim of her assumption on this basis

It’s odd that only two ancient Christian traditions Catholic and Orthodox venerate Mary and Protestants do not…

That’s due because protestants know it cannot be grounded in Scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What if i were to say to you the Thomas ascended into heaven to. Since we don’t have his bones, that must mean he did ascend into heaven. Would you accept that?

That is new and plus that was not mention by the ECF. Mary, however, is different. We have historical documents to prove that Mary did assumed. It was a belief in the Eastern Christianity as well as the Western Christianity.

The idea that Mary did not assumed into heaven is new concept. Because the CC teaches nothing that is new.

 

[justasking4]

Both the Essenes and the Nazarites, along with other groups, had celibate or “spiritual” marriages- this was actually very common, at the time. (Protestant Christianity went through a similar phase in the early 1800s with the Shakers and other Protestant groups that had celibate marriages, in imitation of Mary and Joseph. The idea that they were not celibate is actually very, very recent, even within Protestantism.)

Interesting history. However, what we must look at is --what was the attifude of marriage and children in this time period? That is what has bearing on this. Clearly the Jews considered children a gift of the Lord and to be childless to be a disgrace.

 

[justasking4]

That is new and plus that was not mention by the ECF. Mary, however, is different. We have historical documents to prove that Mary did assumed. It was a belief in the Eastern Christianity as well as the Western Christianity.

Take a look at the dates where this is recorded about her. Its centuries later.

The idea that Mary did not assumed into heaven is new concept. Because the CC teaches nothing that is new.

This is a “new concept” in relation to the NT. The NT does not teach this.

 

[guanophore]

The scripture can be trusted because it was inspired by God. Something your church believes in.

You have your cart before your horse, zcharry. The scriptures you have are known to be inspired because the Catholic Church wrote, preserved, and and pronounced them to be such.

Of course there was tradition or better said, the word of God was there orally. Since the New Testament was written after the Apostles started to preach Gods Word. If there was more it would have been included in the Bible.

Of course there was more!
John 21:25

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Don’t you ever wonder what Jesus said in the 40 days after His resurrection?

Acts 1:3
3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God."

I will give one example of this that is off thread
Why does the Church restrict Priest to marry.
If it is by oral tradition then that oral tradition is wrong.
Scripture clearly states that some of the Apostles were married and was not restricted by the Church.
So to say that Priest can not marry goes against scripture.

Who are you to say that one person’s interpreation of the scripture is “wrong” because it is not the same as yours? Have you made yourself a Pope now? The Church does not forbid marriage to anyone, zcharry. The Church recognizes that those who are called to be priests are also gifted with celibacy.

Matt 19:10-12

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

The Church recognizes that those who are called to be priests are called to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who made Himself a eunuch for the Kingdom. The priesthood is reserved for those to whom it is not expedient to marry.

1 Cor 7:32-35

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. "

The Church wants her priests to be free of anxiety over the things of the world. The Church wants her priests to be anxious about the affairs of the Lord. It is not to lay any restraint, but to promote good order, and to secure undivided attention to the Lord.

The Church also recognizes that marriage is a full time vocation, and supports those entering it to do so with undivided interests.

So what is to be believed, if you are going to say tradition over scripture then were does the digress stop. Your church has decided to create its own wishes over Gods in this example.

Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both equally parts of the Divine Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Apostles, and received by us through their teachings. If they interpret the teaching of Jesus quoted above differently than you, then who is to be believed? I will put my trust in the Apostles, if you don’t mind.

It is not wrong to say that it would be better to not marry, but to restrict it goes against scripture.
In this example it has proved to be a thorn in the Churches side with its problems of Priest transgressions. Does this revert back to scripture where it states it is better to marry if you can not control yourself. Maybe God know better than mans traditions

As you can see, zcharry, there are as many scriptures that support celibacy as there are which do not. Paul writes about the right to have a wife:

“5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?” 1 Cor 9:5-6

He chose to relinquish that right, and became a eunuch for the Kingdom. This is the higher calling. All who enter the priesthood freely embrace this calling ( though some have subsequently fallen away).

Those called to the priesthood are not forced into celibacy.

 

[Mannyfit75]

That’s due because protestants know it cannot be grounded in Scripture.

Protestant is an man-made religion founded in 1517 by a rebel monk name Martin Luther.

It cannot trace its history through the Apostles.

They lack Apostolic Succession.

I have more respect for the Orthodox Christians because they upheld Apostolic Succession and still venerate Mary like we Catholics do. The Protestant belief is the minority when it comes to honoring the Mother of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is a “new concept” in relation to the NT. The NT does not teach this.

No it isn’t new. The Immaculate Conception is implied in Luke 1:28

The Queenship of Mary and her Assumption is implied in Revelation 12:1 much like the Trinity which is no were mention in the Bible is implied.

Protestant doctrine to me is modern and not ancient. Their worship is alien, there is no liturgical worship (except in Conservation Anglican, Lutheran)… Alter Calls is even an idea that is new…

 

[jmcrae]

What if i were to say to you the Thomas ascended into heaven to. Since we don’t have his bones, that must mean he did ascend into heaven. Would you accept that?

We do have his bones, though. They are at a cathedral in India - I don’t remember the name of it, off hand.

The historical documents that show the beliefs of the early Christians are collected in various places. My favourite translations in English at the moment are The Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Denzinger, the Sermons of the Early Church (which is elsewhere at the moment, and I don’t remember the editor’s name), and The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens. Note that these are simply collections of the early writings and teachings, translated into English. The authors listed only wrote the introductory sections, and added one or two historical notes here and there.

The Liturgy of the Hours and the Little Office of the Virgin Mary also contain hymns and litanies about Mary that date back to Apostolic times.

 

[guanophore]

Your first qoute is from 300 + years after the fact. As I stated earlier that would have been only the second time history that someone was taken to heaven in body. It would have been documented the day it happen and I’m sure a shrine or Church would have be built on the site. Volumes would have been written about it. I do not know the truth and it is not told to us by God.

So is is the Creed that most Christians espouse today, zcharry. Is it not valid because it was not written down sooner? So is the contents of your Bible (most of it anyway, what is left after the reformers took some books out). Is the canon of scripture less valid because it was not written sooner?

As a matter of fact, there are shrines at the place where it is believed that Mary lived with John in Ephesus. Since many Christians were being killed, and everyone wanted the Mother of Jesus protected, people probably kept pretty quiet about it so that she would not be killed too.

Volumes have been written about the Dormition.

As a matter of fact, the truth is told to us by God, through the established teaching authority of His Church, the successors of the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting history. However, what we must look at is --what was the attifude of marriage and children in this time period? That is what has bearing on this. Clearly the Jews considered children a gift of the Lord and to be childless to be a disgrace.

For a woman who was not celibate, to be childless would certainly be a disgrace. But if she were celibate, then there would be no disgrace - and if she was supposed to be celibate, and got pregnant, she would most likely be stoned to death, with her child still in her - such would be an even greater disgrace.

 

[LilyM]

What if i were to say to you the Thomas ascended into heaven to. Since we don’t have his bones, that must mean he did ascend into heaven. Would you accept that?

What we DO have in the case of Thomas is a bunch of evidence that he went to India and there set up the church and there was martyred - not assumed into heaven!

Numerous accounts from different sources of this. As well as the fact that European explorers to India found already-established thriving Christian communities - using Syriac (a Middle-Eastern language) in their liturgies no less!

We do not take just your word on it, not just the word of ANY one single source. Neither do we with the Assumption of Mary.

By the way get your terms correct. Not Thomas, nor Mary nor anyone other than Jesus himself has ascended - ascended would mean they did it under their own power. Jesus did ascend. Mary (along with Enoch and Elijah of the OT by the way - and why would Jesus do less for his own mother than for them?) was* assumed *into heaven by God’s power.

Which, by the way, we hope will happen to us all on the last day, no? We expect the bodies of the saved will be taken up to heaven then, don’t we?