Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[Church_Militant]

This is just as much a problem for me as it is for you. Your church has never defined or interpreted what a verse of scripture means. You to do not have an infallible interpreter that has interpreted all the verses of the Scriptures that tell you what they mean.

This is a completely false statement.From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

PROLOGUE

"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.

Look at this!

1 Jn 17 3.
2 1 Tim 2:3-4.
3 Acts 4:12.

Can you show me where the offical interpretations of all the verses or just some of the verses of the Scriptures have been interpreted by pope and bishops can be found?
Without such a source you have no way to tell me or anyone is wrong in how they interpret the scriptures.

Sure can…Catechism of the Catholic Church

I checked this out and it makes my case that this is all based on mere speculation. This is a quote from that article–
"Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

You have no case here. The fact that it was even discussed in 403 means that Epiphanius had to have heard of it from other sources.

Moreover, the earliest Marian prayer dates from at least 150 years earlier than that, about the year 250 according to this article, so your source didn’t go back far enough.

This is the kind of thing that legends and myths are made of.

If you say so, but I have seen far worse come out of far more modern n-C belief systems…

The question is not what Christ could do but what actually happened and what is the evidence for it.

I think it even goes beyond that. I personally suspect that there is a very good reason for the lack of specific canonical information about the Blessed Virgin, and I have outlined it all here. Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

 

[Church_Militant]

Not so. My faith is well grounded in the scriptures. What i’m concerned about are catholics being deceived by these doctrines that your church teaches as true but when we look at the evidence its really not there for many of these claims.

The problem there is that you base your whole theology on the errant and unscriptural modern doctrine of (whatever is your version of ) Sola Scriptura. If your fundamental doctrinal belief is in error, then it readily follows that the majority of the doctrines derived from it are (at least) suspect, and in many cases are also in error.

As for your allegation that Catholics are deceived, I am one of those who has deeply read and studied the Word of God and both Catholic and non-Catholic teachings and concluded that in spite of the n-C hype to the contrary, and their good intentions, it is they who have been deceived by modern post reformation new winds of doctrines that is blowing through Christianity.

You make allegations, but ignore a great deal of scriptural and historical evidence in a blind effort to evangelize Catholics out of their faith. I fell for that once about 40 years ago and I can assure you…it’ll never happen again.

 

[Church_Militant]

How am i proselytizing? I have made my case against these marian doctrines as not being biblical nor grounded in history.

I have to agree with her (?) at this point.

She has not actually expressed an interest in something that will violate the forum rules (yet).

That said, one has to be as wise as serpents when dealing with anyone who is so much opposed to Catholic teachings. I have no doubt that JA4 actually would be happy to see us all bail from the faith. …BUT…there are two very important things that we should all remember here.

1. We all have to learn to refute these kinds of propaganda and not flip out.

and

1. No matter how much JA4 and all the rest of the enemies of the faith wish it…it ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Good_Fella]

Is it not true that through most of catholic history that the pope was not considered infallible?

There are instances in the New Testament where Peter is presented as the chief shepherd and guide of the early Christian community. It is clear that Peter understood his authority and acted on it. For instance, we read about the election of Matthias to replace Judas at which time “Peter stood up among the brethren…”(Acts 1:15) Not only did Peter know of his authoritative position in the Church, but he also knew the place of the Twelve. In speaking about filling the place of Judas, Peter declared, “His office let another take (Acts 1:20).” On Pentecost Peter is the one who takes the lead: “Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them…” (Acts 2:14)

We know that the early Church was convinced of the special place that Peter held in the community. Between 190 and 210 A.D., St. Clement of Alexandria reaffirmed what Jesus said about Peter, that he called him “the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Saviour paid tribute.” (Jurgens 436) Around 244 A.D., Origen spoke of Peter as the foundation of the Church: “Look at the great foundation, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church.” (Jurgens 489) In 251 A.D., St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, explicitly used the word “primacy” when speaking of Peter and his successors in Rome. He spoke of the unity of the Church in “one chair” that is Peter. In a letter from Cyprian to Florentius Paupianus of 254 A.D. he writes:

‘There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church, showing that even if a stubborn multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet, the Church does not withdraw from Christ.’ (Jurgens 587)

The Apostolic Sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. They always appealed to him to settle doctrinal disputes in their communities, ratify doctrines, condemn heresies, and confirm disciplinary orders. Anyway, I have already cited the scriptural verses that support the teaching of papal infallibilty and that of the Magisterium.

I’m aware of this claim. What does this have to do with Mary?

Catholics are united in giving “sacred assent” to the teachings found in the Marian dogmas and a “religious assent” to the teachings found in undefined doctrines concerning Mary. The Teaching Office authoritatively preserves Church unity, since it is endowed with the power to “bind and loose”.

Then why has not your church infallibly interpreted every verse of the Bible if it really has this authority? Think how this could be such a help for catholics.

Did you say every verse? Must the Catholic Church infallibly interpret the meaning of this verse: “On the third day a marriage took place at Cana in Galilee?” The Catholic Church has made 254 dogmatic statements based on the scriptures. There are about 130 doctrines that have yet to be solemnly defined and declared dogma.

Then why do we consider their writings Scripture?

For the same reason we consider the writings of St. Paul and the other apostles scripture: the Sacred Tradition. The Early Church Fathers succeeded the apostles and authoritatively wrote with certainty about the truths of our Christian faith by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They could not err to the extent that their teachings would compromise our salvation.

COLOR=“darkred”]This is problematic for you. Only the Scriptures are said to be inspired-inerrant. What other authority do you have that is inspired-inerrant?

The Sacred Magisterium of the true Church of Christ is the other authority, since the Teaching Office has the divine warranty of being inspired and inerrant when referring to the scriptures. The scriptures do not tell us that the Bible alone is inerrant and inspired. On the contrary, Jesus told us that he would send us the Paraclete who will lead us in all truth. Our Lord assured his apostles that the Church would be an inspired and inerrant source of divine Revelation. He formed his Church so that his apostles and their appointed successors could purvey the Word and Sacraments.

I have never seen such reasoning like this before. Are you saying your church considers itself “Sacred Tradition”?

The Church lays claim to an apostolic Sacred Tradition coupled with Sacred Scriptures. Niether of these mediums of divine revelation are sufficient alone.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Jaypeeto4]

These objections to the assumption are pointless. Not that I’m judging, cuz I used to have the same doubts and for the same reason: no first century writer mentions it.
Doesn’t matter, really.
John does allude to it in the Woman Clothed With The Sun in Revelation 12, especially that the dragon goes after the woman’s “other offspring” namely, those who bear Witness to
Jesus. That’s us. We are not children of the state of Israel.
Mary is the mother of the Head of the Body, hence she is the mother of the members of the body, again, all of us who believe in and bear witness to, Jesus. That’s so simple it’s elementary.
True, the “Woman” in Revelation 12 is a polyvalent symbol (more than one application) and her crown of twelve stars refers both to the twelve tribes of Israel and to the twelve apostles.
Mary lived with John until her passing from this life, and he surely knew what happened to her, and he alluded to it in Revelation 12.
Her pain in giving birth does not refer to her natural childbirth pangs but to her suffering in connection with his birth and with his “birth into new life” thru which she had to witness her dear Son murdered on the Cross. Through those birthpangs she became the mother of the beloved disciple John and the mother of us all, the members of the body of which her Son is the Head.
It would be great if 1st century or 2nd century writers wrote specific accounts of the assumption of Mary, but we don’t need them. We know she is not on this earth because there are no relics of her body, and nobody has ever CLAIMED to have them and nobody from the 1st century till now has ever LOOKED for her remains. The early church regarded the bodies of the Saints as sacred and preserved their remains, in fact enshrined them.
No remains of Mary.
The assumption of Mary was an ORAL tradition, not a written one, for the first 400 years. The FEAST first began to be celebrated in the eastern Christian churches in the 400s. The church does not institute Feasts for newfangled notions. It was thus a longstanding belief. There were a few who expressed uncertainty, but so what?? They were not the magisterium.
In the end, the assumption of Mary is a theological conclusion definitively settled by the God-ordained magisterium of the Church.
The Holy Spirit would not allow the whole church to celebrate the Feast of a false belief from the 400s down to the time of the Reformation. He would have raised up violent opposition to this belief, yet there was none. Even the first Protestant Reformers continued to believe in Mary’s Assumption, hundreds of years before it was solemnly defined by Pope Pius XII. ALL of the ancient Christian bodies, Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic, you name it, believe in the Assumption. The Christians of Southern India who were NOT under the political authority of the Christianized Roman Empire (( in other words, the Pope couldn’t force them to believe anything cuz he had no means to enforce anything on them )) these Christians of Southern India are and have always been, Catholic in doctrine and have always believed in the Assumption of Mary.
The theological conclusion takes into account that there are no remains of Mary claimed by anyone, but it doesn’t stop there by any means. Mary is the New Eve, the uncursed ground from which the New Adam was taken. She is immaculately holy.
She is the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant in that she carried within herself the True Lawgiver (Jesus), the TRUE Manna from Heaven (again, Jesus), and the TRUE High Priest (Jesus), whereas the Old Ark of the Covenant carried the Law, a jar of the original Manna, and the budding staff of Aaron’s priesthood.
As the bearer of God into this world, God would never allow this great Sign, this Woman clothed in the sun of the Glory of God, to rot and lie stinking in the earth. He would have no respect for Himself if he did.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[guanophore]

 Each claim must stand on its own merits. I'm not even asking for a specific date for Mary's assumption but eyewitness accounts from the 1st century. That you don't have.

Neither do we have any documents surviving of that bible you are thumping. What remains is collected and attested to with the authority of the same body that attests to Mary’s Assumption.

There are a number of things that support their trustworthiness. The times and places line up with history. We also have secular witness to some things in the NT.

Yes. The Assumption is an event that was not widely publicized, and was held close to the hearts of the believers. For that reason, there are not so many external testifiers.

John 21:24

You are using John’s eyewitness to apply Matthew? What evidence do you have that “we” includes Matthew?!

That is not much different than the testimony of the fathers about what “we” believe, speaking of the early Christians.

Historical traditions.

Let me get this straight…you will accep that one of the Gospel’s was written by Matthew based on an ambiguous testimony and “historical traditions”, but you will not accept the Assumption of Mary on the same basis? Seems like a double standard.

(How do you know by the author that Hebrews belongs in the bible?)

In some cases it does not. However for the others we do have some good historical backings. In some we really don’t know as in Hebrews.

That same authority that determined Hebrews belongs in the canon validates that Mary was Assumed. How can you accept the testimony on one topic, and not another? Either the authority is qualified to decide, or it’s not!

The NT was not finalized until 4th century.

You did not answer the question. The question was, how many years passed before the gospels were written?

 

[guanophore]

Is it not true that through most of catholic history that the pope was not considered infallible?

That particular word had not been applied, just as the word “trinity” had not been applied to the NT evidence of the Godhead. Hypostatic union had not been applied to Christ, either. The church develops/adapts language to better explain the truths of our faith, such as “Mother of God”.

I’m aware of this claim. What does this have to do with Mary?

Because the Apostolic Authority reflects the unity of the faith around the world.

Then why has not your church infallibly interpreted every verse of the Bible if it really has this authority? Think how this could be such a help for catholics.

Our Church understands that the written word is a distillation of Sacred Tradition, from which it was never meant to be separated. In the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox) that authoritative apostolic succession is preserved. Since there are qualified persons to interpret and teach, it has never been necessary to “interpret every verse” of the Bible. The Bible was not meant to be piecemealed as the reformers have done. The whole is to be taken together, and understood as a whole, and not isolated verses. All of it is to be interpreted in the light of the Sacred Traditions. Catholics are helped by this. It is called the Catechism. Catechism means “echo”. The teachings faithfully echo what the writers intended.

Then why do we consider their writings Scripture?

Because that same Apostolic Authority to which the preached message was committed has attested that they are valid representations of the preached message. That same authority attests that the belief that Mary was Assumed has been present since the day it was discovered.

(And only three of the apostles became authors of the sacred texts. There is no “evidence” in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended that the Bible be the sole authority of the Christian faith. )

This is problematic for you. Only the Scriptures are said to be inspired-inerrant. What other authority do you have that is inspired-inerrant?

It is not problematic at all for Catholics. It is also erroneous that that only the scriptures are said to be inspired-inerrant. Protestants believe this because most of them don’t know any better. The Sacred Tradition that produced those scriptures is equally inspired-inerrant. Otherwise, how could the scriptures be validated?

{But Jesus did commission his apostles to form his visible Church. The Church is Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scriptures have emerged from this tradition to form the Deposit of Faith.}

I have never seen such reasoning like this before.

Great! I am glad that you know know something about Church History that you did not know before.

Are you saying your church considers itself “Sacred Tradition”?

Yes. Catholics and Orthodox consider themselves keepers if the infallible-inerrant Sacred Traditions as passed to us through the Apostolic Succession.

 

[guanophore]

How am i proselytizing? I have made my case against these marian doctrines as not being biblical nor grounded in history.

Not so. My faith is well grounded in the scriptures. What i’m concerned about are catholics being deceived by these doctrines that your church teaches as true but when we look at the evidence its really not there for many of these claims.

Perhaps I misunderstood. This is a thread about why Catholics (and Orthodox) belief in the Assuption of Mary. You have been refuting these beliefs, which go back to the earliest days of the church. I asked why, and you said you were “concerned about catholics”. This is different than wanting to understand a doctrine. It reflects that you are not here to learn, but that you have already made up your mind that we are wrong in our beliefs, and that we are heading down some sort of dangerous path. Would it not be your Christian duty to warn us about our error? To try to get us to follow a right path instead?

Since the Bible is your sole rule of faith, and we can agree that the doctrines of the Assumption of Mary cannot be “proved” in the Bible do you have any other recourse but to believe that these doctrines are “off base”?

Indeed, all your activity on this thread has stated as much.

 

[guanophore]

How can you have “apostolic authority” when the apostles never taught anything about Mary’s assumption?

There are many teachings that are not in the written record. You cannot assert that something not written it did not happen. For example, where in the gospels does Jesus teach us “it is better to give than receive”? The Bible itself testfies that not everything is written.

Apostolic Authority is that given by Jesus to the Apostles to preach and to teach in His name. This authority has been preserved in an unbroken line back to the 12 (succession) through the process of ordination.

Most of the Apostles were martyred before Mary’s death, so it makes sense that they did nor speak or write about it. Mary lived with John in Ephesus, and that is why the feast of the Dormition emerged first in the eastern churches.

If your faith is not based on facts you don’t have the truth.

This is true. The difference is that we accept the Apostolic Authority that produced and validated the scripture as having equal authority to that scripture. Therefore, we are privy to many more “facts” than our Sola Scriptura brethren.

I have looked at it and the catechism does not interpret verses but gives you doctrine and practices. That is not its function.

It has many functions, one of them is the right interpretation of scripture. Our doctrine and practices are based upon a right undertanding of the Divine Revelation, which has come to us through Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Writing.

There is no such thing as an infallible interpreter of scripture. What we must do is to study the scuptures to find its truths.

Well, there may not be in your faith tradition, but there is for Catholics and Orthodox. We recognize that the appropriate understanding of the scripture comes through those who wrote the scriptures, whose interpretations are preserved for us in the Sacred Traditions.

I agree with you, however, that we must study the scripture to find it’s truths. Such study was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from which that scripture emerged.

 

[Good_Fella]

These are not circular arguments. What has not been shown on the catholic side is that these verses used are anything about what your church claims about her.

There are no verses in the scriptures that preclude Mary’s Assumption. If so, the onus is on you to produce them, since you are the one who is appealing to evidence. The verses we refer to provide strong support for our Marian doctrines and dogmas. The scriptures reveal divine truths both implicitly and explicitly. Our Lord did assure his apostles that the Spirit would reveal more things to come through his Church.

This not what Paul is saying here. He exhorts them to hold to the traditions “they were taught”. The traditions Paul is referring to are his own and not what a church would teach in the future.

The traditions Paul speaks of are not his own, but are the Church’s. You are divorcing the apostle from the Church. Nor do the teachings of the Church end with Paul and the other apostles of the New Testament, for the Church did not come to an end with their deaths. Their ordained successors carried the tradition on, and it is through the Church’s Sacred Tradition that our Lord continues to lead us in “all” truth until the end of time in accordance with his promise to Peter and the Twelve, years before Paul became a Christian and was ordained a bishop. Jesus said to his apostles: “It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” (Mt 10:20) Paul says, “Whether it be I or they, so we preach, and so you believed.” (1 Cor 15:11)

Paul did not preach alone according to his own agenda. He purveyed the Word of God as one of the apostles of the Church. In the above verse he is alluding to all apostles like himself, including those who will come after him in the life of the Church until the end of time. The Church has taught much more than what is contained in Paul’s letters through the course of the centuries in keeping with Christ’s prophetic words. The Catholic Church has declared 254 dogmas based on the entire scriptures as a whole, and there are an additional 132 doctrines that have yet to be solemnly defined and declared dogma by the Sacred Magisterium.

That may be but that doesn’t mean its true. There is no evidence for it.

St. Paul defined faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.”

This has got to be one of the weakest arguments i have seen in awhile. We say the samething about all kinds of people in the NT and say they to were assumed into heaven.

I am reasoning along your line of thought. You claim that the Assumption of Mary is untrue because the scriptures do not explicitly mention it. I claim that Mary’s Assumption is true because the Scriptures do not record her death and burial. Are you telling me that the scriptures do not have to record an event in order for it to be true? You contradict yourself. If there were scriptural grounds for the Assumption of St. Joseph, the Catholic Church would have celebrated this Feast long before it too would have become dogma. The scriptures tell us by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the only New Testament figure to have been assumed into Heaven is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the Ark of the New Covenant. Because of Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant was destroyed, just as the Jewish Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 135 A.D. because of Jesus’ perpetual sacrifice for the atonement of sins.

You are assuming this without any evidence.

Any law enforcement agency will tell you that without a body a murder charge cannot be laid on the suspect. This is not an assumption, but a question of evidence. Shall we report Mary as a missing person?

I don’t believe it for a number of reasons. For one there is no evidence for it. 2-the apostles never taught such a thing.

Why do you keep confusing faith with evidence? An agnostic or an athiest will tell you the same thing about the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. What the apostles taught would not be considered credible evidence but merely hearsay. We believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because the scriptures explicitly mention these events. And we believe that Mary’s Assumption actually took place because the Spirit of the scriptures tells us so in a combination of numerous passages. None of us have seen these events for ourselves, so the faithful are counted among “those who have not seen and yet believed.” This is true faith. And it is the Catholic faith, shorn of speculation and rationalization which is the mark of Protestantism.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Most of the first and second century writings were confiscated and destroyed by the Romans during the great persecutions. The Christological writings that survived are just a few lengthy paragraphs. Much more must have been written about Jesus, which explains why a few passages escaped the hands of the Romans.

Pax Vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2497400]Neither do we have any documents surviving of that bible you are thumping.

Huh? We have thousands of either manuscripts or parts of the NT.

What remains is collected and attested to with the authority of the same body that attests to Mary’s Assumption.

Yes. The Assumption is an event that was not widely publicized, and was held close to the hearts of the believers. For that reason, there are not so many external testifiers.

There are no external testifers. This is what the New Advent (a catholic source) says this about the assumption:
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
Notice that its centuries before this even comes up.

You are using John’s eyewitness to apply Matthew? What evidence do you have that “we” includes Matthew?!

What others said in history. This would be 2-4th generation disciples.

That is not much different than the testimony of the fathers about what “we” believe, speaking of the early Christians.

Let me get this straight…you will accep that one of the Gospel’s was written by Matthew based on an ambiguous testimony and “historical traditions”, but you will not accept the Assumption of Mary on the same basis? Seems like a double standard.

2 different issues. We have a far better testimony that Matthew was the author of that gospel that bears his name. For the assumption, that is not at all mentioned in the scriptures and as the quote above says it was not mentioned for centuries and has no eyewitness accounts.

(How do you know by the author that Hebrews belongs in the bible?)

I suspect it qualified for a number of reasons. I could do some research and get back to this later.

That same authority that determined Hebrews belongs in the canon validates that Mary was Assumed. How can you accept the testimony on one topic, and not another? Either the authority is qualified to decide, or it’s not!

Just because someone may be right some of the time doesn’t mean they are right all of the time. Look at the history of your church and you will see this played out graphically. It has been wrong on a number of issues throughout time. Secondly, your church is made up of fallen men who can and do error.
Thirdly, the Scriptures warned that false teachers would come into the church and decieve many. That to is true in your church.

You did not answer the question. The question was, how many years passed before the gospels were written?

Probably between 20-30 years after Christ died and rose again. i think the NT canon was done before 70. Others think by 95.

 

[justasking4]

For some reason the reply button is not working. I copied and pasted the entire reply here. This is part 1

Good Fella

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
These are not circular arguments. What has not been shown on the catholic side is that these verses used are anything about what your church claims about her.

There are no verses in the scriptures that preclude Mary’s Assumption. If so, the onus is on you to produce them, since you are the one who is appealing to evidence.

If i argue the way you are here, i could say that Timothy was assumed into heaven also. Since you are the one making the claim she was assumed, then its up to you to show the proof. There is no evidence of any assumption for Mary in the NT. None. Historically it is not mentioned for centuries.

The verses we refer to provide strong support for our Marian doctrines and dogmas. The scriptures reveal divine truths both implicitly and explicitly. Our Lord did assure his apostles that the Spirit would reveal more things to come through his Church.

Look at this passage in Scripture that you are referring to. Jesus is speaking to His disciples and not to some future church leadership. We know at least He was referring to NT.

This not what Paul is saying here. He exhorts them to hold to the traditions “they were taught”. The traditions Paul is referring to are his own and not what a church would teach in the future.

The traditions Paul speaks of are not his own, but are the Church’s. You are divorcing the apostle from the Church.

Who specifically is the us in this passage? Remember that Paul is probably hundreds of miles away from the other apostles when he wrote this.

Nor do the teachings of the Church end with Paul and the other apostles of the New Testament, for the Church did not come to an end with their deaths.

This is true. However the teachings of a church are not inspired-inerrant either.

Their ordained successors carried the tradition on, and it is through the Church’s Sacred Tradition that our Lord continues to lead us in “all” truth until the end of time in accordance with his promise to Peter and the Twelve, years before Paul became a Christian and was ordained a bishop. Jesus said to his apostles: “It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” (Mt 10:20) Paul says, “Whether it be I or they, so we preach, and so you believed.” (1 Cor 15:11)

This is where the problem lies. When you look at many of the catholic church’ teachings, you find them teaching things the apostles never taught. Also as i’ve said before there the false teachers who would come into the church and deceive many.

Paul did not preach alone according to his own agenda. He purveyed the Word of God as one of the apostles of the Church. In the above verse he is alluding to all apostles like himself, including those who will come after him in the life of the Church until the end of time. The Church has taught much more than what is contained in Paul’s letters through the course of the centuries in keeping with Christ’s prophetic words. The Catholic Church has declared 254 dogmas based on the entire scriptures as a whole, and there are an additional 132 doctrines that have yet to be solemnly defined and declared dogma by the Sacred Magisterium.

Has your church ever infallibly interpreted the all the scripture?

That may be but that doesn’t mean its true. There is no evidence for it.

St. Paul defined faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.”

Were not talking at this point about the nature of faith but truth. You can’t have real biblical faith if the thing you believe in did not happen.

 

[justasking4]

part 2

This has got to be one of the weakest arguments i have seen in awhile. We say the samething about all kinds of people in the NT and say they to were assumed into heaven.

I am reasoning along your line of thought. You claim that the Assumption of Mary is untrue because the scriptures do not explicitly mention it. I claim that Mary’s Assumption is true because the Scriptures do not record her death and burial.

You are not making an argument here but an assertion. You have no facts to back this assertion up.

Are you telling me that the scriptures do not have to record an event in order for it to be true? You contradict yourself.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

If

there were scriptural grounds for the Assumption of St. Joseph, the Catholic Church would have celebrated this Feast long before it too would have become dogma. The scriptures tell us by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the only New Testament figure to have been assumed into Heaven is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the Ark of the New Covenant.

There is not one verse in the NT that says Mary was assumed or the Ark of the Covenant.

Because of Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant was destroyed, just as the Jewish Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 135 A.D. because of Jesus’ perpetual sacrifice for the atonement of sins.

You are assuming this without any evidence.

Any law enforcement agency will tell you that without a body a murder charge cannot be laid on the suspect. This is not an assumption, but a question of evidence. Shall we report Mary as a missing person?

It is best to say we don’t know. Instead your church claims she was assumed without any evidence. Thats whats wrong.

I

don’t believe it for a number of reasons. For one there is no evidence for it. 2-the apostles never taught such a thing.

Why do you keep confusing faith with evidence? An agnostic or an athiest will tell you the same thing about the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. What the apostles taught would not be considered credible evidence but merely hearsay.

I disagree. The evidence fior the resurrection is the best attested fact in ancient history. Paul in I cor 15:1-8 makes his case for it with over 500 witnesses under a number of different circumstances.

We believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because the scriptures explicitly mention these events.

See my previous comment.

And we believe that Mary’s Assumption actually took place because the Spirit of the scriptures tells us so in a combination of numerous passages. None of us have seen these events for ourselves, so the faithful are counted among “those who have not seen and yet believed.” This is true faith.

True bibical faith requires evidence and proof. Thats why Jesus spent so much time demonstrating with public miracles and finally with the greatest miracle of all–the resurrection.

And it is the Catholic faith, shorn of speculation and rationalization which is the mark of Protestantism.

What rationalizations of protestants are you referring to?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[JoeyWarren]

There are no external testifers. This is what the New Advent (a catholic source) says this about the assumption:
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
Notice that its centuries before this even comes up.

yet…

“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).

 

[JoeyWarren]

Quote:
I am reasoning along your line of thought. You claim that the Assumption of Mary is untrue because the scriptures do not explicitly mention it. I claim that Mary’s Assumption is true because the Scriptures do not record her death and burial.

You are not making an argument here but an assertion. You have no facts to back this assertion up.

yet…

There is no mention of the Ark of the Covenant being assumed in heaven in the Old Testament, yet we see that it is sitting in the Temple of God in heaven as per Revelations 11.

 

[JoeyWarren]

JustAsking4 said: True bibical faith requires evidence and proof. Thats why Jesus spent so much time demonstrating with public miracles and finally with the greatest miracle of all–the resurrection.

Does anyone else see the foot in mouth on this one?

---

I be thinking JustAsking4 just committed a Thomas Didymus?

---

Blessed are those that have believed and not seen…

 

[Church_Militant]

If i argue the way you are here, i could say that Timothy was assumed into heaven also. Since you are the one making the claim she was assumed, then its up to you to show the proof. There is no evidence of any assumption for Mary in the NT. None. Historically it is not mentioned for centuries.

Which is entirely possible, is it not?

Look at this passage in Scripture that you are referring to. Jesus is speaking to His disciples and not to some future church leadership. We know at least He was referring to NT.

If you say so…but that is not what the passage in question says. Can you provide scripture that says that that promise ended there? I don’t think so…

Who specifically is the us in this passage? Remember that Paul is probably hundreds of miles away from the other apostles when he wrote this.

This comment makes no sense as it stands. If proximity is a key to correct teaching then all of Christianity is flawed.

This is true. However the teachings of a church are not inspired-inerrant either.

Yet no other entity has that promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, nor the promise of the Holy Spirit as teacher and guide. In Matthew 18 Jesus tells us to take problems between us to the church, which certainly implies Holy Spirit inspired leadership.

This is where the problem lies. When you look at many of the catholic church’ teachings, you find them teaching things the apostles never taught. Also as i’ve said before there the false teachers who would come into the church and deceive many.

This is untrue, and you cannot support it from Catholic teaching. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin is not inconsistent with scripture, and I have some ideas as to why there is not more information on it. Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s…

Has your church ever infallibly interpreted the all the scripture?

Why would it? Has yours? If not then your question is specious…

Were not talking at this point about the nature of faith but truth. You can’t have real biblical faith if the thing you believe in did not happen.

Then in this case you will have to correct your own faith community before attempting to offer correction to Catholics, because it has been shown many times that the fundamental n-C teaching of Sola Scriptura is unscriptural, and since that means that it “did not happen”, then as you just said you (and other such n-Cs) “can’t have real biblical faith if the thing you believe in did not happen.”

 

[justasking4]

That particular word had not been applied, just as the word “trinity” had not been applied to the NT evidence of the Godhead. Hypostatic union had not been applied to Christ, either. The church develops/adapts language to better explain the truths of our faith, such as “Mother of God”.

Because the Apostolic Authority reflects the unity of the faith around the world.

Our Church understands that the written word is a distillation of Sacred Tradition, from which it was never meant to be separated. In the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox) that authoritative apostolic succession is preserved. Since there are qualified persons to interpret and teach, it has never been necessary to “interpret every verse” of the Bible. The Bible was not meant to be piecemealed as the reformers have done. The whole is to be taken together, and understood as a whole, and not isolated verses. All of it is to be interpreted in the light of the Sacred Traditions. Catholics are helped by this. It is called the Catechism. Catechism means “echo”. The teachings faithfully echo what the writers intended.

Because that same Apostolic Authority to which the preached message was committed has attested that they are valid representations of the preached message. That same authority attests that the belief that Mary was Assumed has been present since the day it was discovered.

(And only three of the apostles became authors of the sacred texts. There is no “evidence” in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended that the Bible be the sole authority of the Christian faith. )

It is not problematic at all for Catholics. It is also erroneous that that only the scriptures are said to be inspired-inerrant. Protestants believe this because most of them don’t know any better. The Sacred Tradition that produced those scriptures is equally inspired-inerrant. Otherwise, how could the scriptures be validated?

{But Jesus did commission his apostles to form his visible Church. The Church is Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scriptures have emerged from this tradition to form the Deposit of Faith.}

Great! I am glad that you know know something about Church History that you did not know before.

Yes. Catholics and Orthodox consider themselves keepers if the infallible-inerrant Sacred Traditions as passed to us through the Apostolic Succession.

what i’m asking is: does your church consider itself inspired-inerrant as a church?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;2515832]Which is entirely possible, is it not?

The question is not is it possible but did it happen and what is the evidence for it.

If you say so…but that is not what the passage in question says. Can you provide scripture that says that that promise ended there? I don’t think so…

This comment makes no sense as it stands. If proximity is a key to correct teaching then all of Christianity is flawed.
Not so. This is about evidence and proximity. Someone claiming that something happened centuries before without any evidence to support a claim is not compelling nor believeable.

Yet no other entity has that promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, nor the promise of the Holy Spirit as teacher and guide. In Matthew 18 Jesus tells us to take problems between us to the church, which certainly implies Holy Spirit inspired leadership.

Even if a church claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit does not mean it will always teach the truth.

This is untrue, and you cannot support it from Catholic teaching. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin is not inconsistent with scripture, and I have some ideas as to why there is not more information on it. Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s…

I don’t how you say that the “assumption of the Blessed Virgin is not inconsistent with scripture” when the scriptures never mention it or even hint at it. Without this foundation all you have is specualtions of men.

Why would it? Has yours? If not then your question is specious…Then in this case you will have to correct your own faith community before attempting to offer correction to Catholics, because it has been shown many times that the fundamental n-C teaching of Sola Scriptura is unscriptural, and since that means that it “did not happen”, then as you just said you (and other such n-Cs) “can’t have real biblical faith if the thing you believe in did not happen.”
This is not argument for sola scriptura one way or the other. Rather it is about how the catholic church goes about supporting a doctrine that we both know has no basis in scripture (not mentioned) nor are there any historical accounts for it. No amount of authority can make something true if there are no basis to it.