Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[justasking4]

I’m not able to read your entire message in this mode so i copied and pasted what you are asking.

So I assumed that

A.) We must have those titles in the Scripture if we are to have grounds for an immaculate conception / assumption (that follows from it)

It can be further assumed from that

B.) We have to have something first in the Scripture to have grounds for it.

Ok then.

Now:

If the statement B:

1.includes itself then it also has to be found in the Scripture
2. doesn’t include itself then that means that it is not afterall true that B —> contradiction —> end of reasoning

Consequently:

My question is where do you have “B” in the Scripture? Or you can try and show directly where do we have the point A in the Scripture.

Therefore I gave you the question (which concerns point A actually):

Therefore I could ask you “Where in the Scripture do you have mentioned that since the titles I used above are never mentioned in Scripture, I don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption?”

Ok. Now, can you get back to my question and answer my question found in the bold in this reasoning?

If not, you would have to seriously reconsider (i.e call off and not use it anymore) your kind of reasoning:

 

[Good_Fella]

Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

Yes. There is none for Mary’s supposed assumption.

Your church not only does not have Scriptural support her assumption but there is no histrorical evidence either. Where is the eyewitness accounts for this event from the 1st century? That what you need to support the claim that she was assumed into heaven.

What historical facts from the 1st century shows that she was taken up? When was this first reported?

Justask4it, please read my Reply #217. The Catholic Church does not speculate in her infallible teachings unlike the countless denominations in the Protestant movement that rely on fallible speculation separated from the apostolic heritage. That Mary was conceived without original sin is an ‘infallible’ dogma: ‘Ineffibalis Deus’. I am not speculating, but you are. You confuse the authority of Sacred Scriptures - the first pillar of the Catholic Church - with your own fallible and biased interpretations. The Protestant denominations have no authority invested by our Lord to infallibly interpret scriptures. Your divisions in numerous essential doctrines shows that the Holy Spirit is not guiding you in all truth. Protestantism is a CONTRADICTION of our Lord’s own words and intentions. Open your eyes!

Again, there is scriptural evidence for the Assumption: Revelation 12; Genesis 3:15; Luke 1:28, 49. Pope Pius Xll wisely judged there was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You fundamentalists sound like a record skipping.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[zemi]

i’m not sure i completely understand you here. If you are asking do you have Scriptural or historical grounds to believe that Mary was taken to heaven the answer is no. The burden of proof is on your church to give you Scriptural reasons to beleive this. It has failed to do so for the mere fact it never claims it of her. Secondly, it has also failed historically to do so.

No you didn’t understand my question at all I humbly think I couldn’t state it any better. Maybe you could re-read it? Basically, it was about - if you want to make claims like you’re making here in this thread show me where in the Scripture is:

A.) We must have those titles in the Scripture if we are to have grounds for an immaculate conception / assumption (that follows from it)

or more generally:

B.) We have to have something first in the Scripture to have grounds for it.

Any answer now?

 

[clmowry]

Really? Isn’t that the basis for everything novel in the various protestant faiths?

Chuck

Since we have no written records for this, all you are left with is specualtion. Doctrines and pracitices should not be based on specualtions.

 

[Zooey]

Quote:
You are also using a faulty logic. BY this logic, we could say…

The scripture never talks about the United States of America, therefore, we cannot ever say God Bless America.

Your manner of reasoning suggests that, if something does not appear in scripture, it is not true. If Scripture does not call Mary the Mother of God, then neither should we!

Or, we might argue, using "justasking4"s logic:The Scripture never says, anywhere, that anyone can call himslef “justasking4”; ergo, “justasking4” is in rebellion against the Bible when he calls himself that…

Here is an example of what I was talking about. Your logic is based on the assumption that, if it is not stated in scripture, then it is not true.
The title Theotokos means literally “God-bearer.” It is the title used by the Greek fathers from Origen in the early third century, and some even think it can be traced to Hippolytus who died in A.D. 236. (See F. L. Cross, Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press [1957]) This term for the Virgin Mary was used increasingly by the early Church, but in the early fifth century it was attacked by Nestorius, who wanted to replace the term Theotokos with Christotokos or “Christ-bearer.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0204fea3.asp

All the titles given to Mary are derived from who Jesus is. If Jesus is really God, then she is the God Bearer (Mother of God). The heresy of Nestorianism, the denial of the divinity nature of Jesus, was already addressed in the third century. Are you bringing it back again?

Do I need to:wink: bring out my little Walking Skeleton Smiley yet???

i dont’ deny the natures of Christ.

If your position is that Mary is (a) not the Mother of God, & (b) not a queen, then… sorry, but the fact is, that **you are **http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/2.gif denying the nature of Christ.

I have no problem believing Mary was blessed. Scripture teaches that. Again, we should not go beyond what the scriptures teach about her. It is totally unnecesssary for the mere fact Jesus alone is sufficent for all that we need or desire.

OK…Then we’ll all end up as Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses or Unitarian-Universalists, because the whole point of everything you are discarding, is precisely to prevent us from falling into that kind of error…

 

[Zooey]

The Marian doctrines emerged out of defense against heresy. They were taught and believed before that, but not defined on a grand level.

This may be where the problem lies with these marian doctrines. By giving Mary the title of Mother of God, the catholic church has allowed all kinds of unscriptural to be taught about her.

On the contrary: By refusing to call Mary by the title of the Mother of God, protestant churches have allowed all kinds of unscriptural things to be taught about the Lord Jesus Christ!!

 

[Jaypeeto4]

On the contrary: By refusing to call Mary by the title of the Mother of God, protestant churches have allowed all kinds of unscriptural things to be taught about the Lord Jesus Christ!!

That’s true, but to be fair, not ALL Protestants refuse to call Mary by the title MOTHER OF GOD.

I have heard two ministers,
John Hagee (fundamentalist) and
Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy (conservative Presbyterian)
both refer to Mary as the **Mother of God **in their sermons.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Zooey]

**

On the contrary: By refusing to call Mary by the title of the Mother of God, protestant churches have allowed all kinds of unscriptural things to be taught about the Lord Jesus Christ!!

Quite true!!!
Your:tiphat: Friendly Neighborhood Methodist does the:yup: :yup: same!!!
Still, it is the refusal of many to give Mary her proper titles, which sets the stage for heretical teachings about the nature(s) of her Son!!

 

[justasking4]

On the contrary: By refusing to call Mary by the title of the Mother of God, protestant churches have allowed all kinds of unscriptural things to be taught about the Lord Jesus Christ!!

Can you give me a couple of examples?

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=LilyM;2391794]Ummm, no.

To trot out the often-used example, if someone falls into a pit and I come along afterwards and pull them out, then I’ve saved them from that pit. If I see someone ABOUT to fall into a pit and reach out to stop them BEFORE they fall in, I’ve equally saved them from the pit.

A financial advisor teaches you how to ‘save’ money by telling you how to AVOID spending it in the first place. A doctor can save you from obesity by seeing to it that you exercise and eat right and never BECOME obese in the first place.

So God saved Mary from sin by preventing her from sinning in the first place.

Since all that we know about Mary is in the Scriptures, where is this taught i.e. prevented from sinning?

So why is there a need for a specific verse or passage to prove that Mary is mother of God, or Queen of Heaven, or Immaculately Conceived or Assumed?

Anyone can make claims. What is the more difficult thing is to show why the claim should be believed. What is the basis for this claim? Its not in Scripture which means that you are left with opinions of men without any scripture to back it up.

Why require higher proofs for these doctrines than for the idea that the very canon of Scripture itself is set in stone and infallible?

The canon of Scripture is a different one than this claim.

(By the way - you are aware, are you not, that the Orthodox have a different canon to the CC which is different again to the non-CC Protestants? So the canon isn’t exactly self-evident revelation either)

Another topic for another time.

 

[justasking4]

How come?! Then again, I say, you cannot know on the basis of that assumption know which books belong to the Bible!

Which books belong in the Bible is a different issue than the basis for Mary’s supposed assumption. We already know that Scripture never makes such a claim

PS: If you find time, will you give me an answer to my post # 174?

I may have already. Let me check.

 

[justasking4]

Justask4it, please read my Reply #217. The Catholic Church does not speculate in her infallible teachings unlike the countless denominations in the Protestant movement that rely on fallible speculation separated from the apostolic heritage. That Mary was conceived without original sin is an ‘infallible’ dogma: ‘Ineffibalis Deus’. I am not speculating, but you are.

Where are the facts that Mary was assumed into heaven? There is no mention of it in Scripture and if i’m not mistaken was unknown for centuries. If i’m wrong please correct me with some scipture or history.

You confuse the authority of Sacred Scriptures - the first pillar of the Catholic Church - with your own fallible and biased interpretations. The Protestant denominations have no authority invested by our Lord to infallibly interpret scriptures. Your divisions in numerous essential doctrines shows that the Holy Spirit is not guiding you in all truth. Protestantism is a CONTRADICTION of our Lord’s own words and intentions. Open your eyes!

 

[justasking4]

No you didn’t understand my question at all I humbly think I couldn’t state it any better. Maybe you could re-read it? Basically, it was about - if you want to make claims like you’re making here in this thread show me where in the Scripture is:

A.) We must have those titles in the Scripture if we are to have grounds for an immaculate conception / assumption (that follows from it)

As i’ve said previously, titles represent a truth claim about someone. We not do not have such titles for her in Scripture but we don’t have any facts of scripture to back up these titles.

or more generally:

B.) We have to have something first in the Scripture to have grounds for it.

Any answer now?

Since all that we know about her is found only in Scripture, then it is to the Scriptures we must go to.

 

[justasking4]

Really? Isn’t that the basis for everything novel in the various protestant faiths?

Chuck

Can you give me a couple of examples of this?

 

[zemi]

As i’ve said previously, titles represent a truth claim about someone. We not do not have such titles for her in Scripture but we don’t have any facts of scripture to back up these titles.

Oh, yes we have The thing no one will accept it unless he is already predisposed to reject it.

Since all that we know about her is found only in Scripture, then it is to the Scriptures we must go to.

1. As for your premise - that is obviously not true. To take a very basic example: We know that no one has produced Mary’s body or her relics. That is simply a FACT. A FACT not found the Scriptures. Are you denying that fact? Your assumption is not true.
2. Neither your conclusion is logically valid. You are begging the question… That is precisely what I ask you. I am asking you in other words “Why should we go to the Scriptures”? You answer by assuming the thing that is in question…

 

[LilyM]

Since all that we know about Mary is in the Scriptures, where is this taught i.e. prevented from sinning?

No. All we know about Mary is NOT in the Scriptures. There are other writings such as the Protevangelion of James and the Infancy Gospels about her among other things. These may not be inspired books or necessary belief for salvation, but it doesn’t mean they’re untrue.

We can and do rely on sources outside scripture about her. Including what has been orally taught about her - such as that she was assumed into heaven!

The canon of Scripture is a different one than this claim.

Yet requires less proof??? Of course it doesn’t. You’re making similarly large claims about the canon of the scripture as we do about the Assumption of Mary - so go on, give us your scriptural evidence that each book in it is inspired, and that all inspired books are contained within it!

Otherwise the canon of scripture too is only ‘opinions of men’ and ‘claims that anyone may make’, according to your own seriously flawed logic.

 

[clmowry]

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide

Chuck

Can you give me a couple of examples of this?

 

[zemi]

Oh, yes we have The **thing no **one will accept it unless he is already predisposed to reject it.

I apologize…I meant the thing is

 

[justasking4]

Oh, yes we have The thing no one will accept it unless he is already predisposed to reject it.

Then please show me any of these titles that are specifically applied to her by name?

1. As for your premise - that is obviously not true. To take a very basic example: We know that no one has produced Mary’s body or her relics. That is simply a FACT. A FACT not found the Scriptures. Are you denying that fact?

We should go to the Scriptures on this issue for a number of reasons.
1- It is the Scriptures alone that are inspired-inerrant.
2- All that we know about her is found in the Scriptures.
3- The Scriptures never speak of her in the way your church does.
4- Since the Scriptures never speak specifically of her in this way, then you have no scriptural facts to back this claim up.
5- Many of the claims that your church makes about her are contrary to what the scriptures teach about humanity. For example we know that all men and women born of human parents are fallen in sin. Romans 5:12. To deny that Mary did not sin or was kept from sin is to call the Scriptures a lie.

This doctrine should be rejected on these grounds alone.

 

[justasking4]

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide

Chuck

What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?