Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[IronHammer]

justaking4,

I have read this entire thread up to this point. Your arguments (and the responses) are simply wasting space on the forum since everyone is running a race on two different tracks. The Catholics say Mary’s IC and Assumption is fact because the Magisterium says it is so. You say it is not fact because you do not believe in the Magisterium and because it is not scriptural. We can un-muddy the waters quite a bit if you would just answer one question.

By what authority do you have this teaching that something cannot be believed unless it is in the Holy Scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

No, it is not an assumption. It is an article of our faith, handed down to us by the Apostolic Succession.

I understand that its an article of faith but its based on an assumption since there are no facts for it. No proof. No evidence.

I am not at all sure that any of the writers would be. The most likely is John, who wrote last, after she actually departed, and he does include a reference. It is likely most of the other NT documents were completed prior to her dormition.

No need to go further with this. Don’t you think that as a catholic you have a right to see the evidence for its claims? As a thinking catholic would you find it troubling if there really is not good evidence for some of its claims?

 

[justasking4]

justaking4,

I have read this entire thread up to this point. Your arguments (and the responses) are simply wasting space on the forum since everyone is running a race on two different tracks. The Catholics say Mary’s IC and Assumption is fact because the Magisterium says it is so. You say it is not fact because you do not believe in the Magisterium and because it is not scriptural. We can un-muddy the waters quite a bit if you would just answer one question.

By what authority do you have this teaching that something cannot be believed unless it is in the Holy Scriptures?

What you say here is the crux of the matter. Many catholics i know when we get down to the details of doctrine and practice will evenually come to this issue of authority. Since the claims that your church makes about Mary cannot be supported by scripture as i’ve tried to show, the catholic must either reject your church teachings on this matter or believe that the authority of the catholic church can never teach falsely even though there may not be an proofs of scripture to support a claim.
Since the Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God it alone is the highest authority on what a Christian should believe. Its authority is greater than any instutions. Only its teachings are binding. What this means in the case of the marian doctrines is that since it is not taught in the Scriptures it is not binding.
What i have seen throughout these discussions here is that there is not the support from scripture to believe that it is based on Scripture. I have yet to see someone show me using proper study methods i.e. word meanings and contexts that support these claims about her.

 

[LilyM]

What you say here is the crux of the matter. Many catholics i know when we get down to the details of doctrine and practice will evenually come to this issue of authority. Since the claims that your church makes about Mary cannot be supported by scripture as i’ve tried to show, the catholic must either reject your church teachings on this matter or believe that the authority of the catholic church can never teach falsely even though there may not be an proofs of scripture to support a claim.
Since the Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God it alone is the highest authority on what a Christian should believe. Its authority is greater than any instutions. Only its teachings are binding. What this means in the case of the marian doctrines is that since it is not taught in the Scriptures it is not binding.
What i have seen throughout these discussions here is that there is not the support from scripture to believe that it is based on Scripture. I have yet to see someone show me using proper study methods i.e. word meanings and contexts that support these claims about her.

And where is THAT in Scripture? That the scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant word of God?

What about the ‘many things’ Jesus (THE Word which contains and surpasses all mere written words) said that John admits weren’t and couldn’t be recorded? Was ANYTHING he said not inerrant? Not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

What about the words the Apostles spoke at Pentecost? Were all of THOSE words recorded? Highly unlikely - they didn’t know they were gonna speak and didn’t make sure to have a bunch of scribes handy to get every word down. Weren’t they nonetheless inspired-inerrant?

What about the words your own pastor says, do you honestly think he never speaks under inspiration and is thus inerrant when he does? And if not what the heck are you wasting your time listening to him for, you’d do just as well on your own!

 

[justasking4]

i don’t see how you can infer something when there are no facts to support it with.There is no verse in scripture that even alludes to her assumption.

That is purely your opinion that no verse in scripture even alludes to her assumption.

 

[guanophore]

I understand that its an article of faith but its based on an assumption since there are no facts for it. No proof. No evidence.

Well, none that YOU will accept!

I find the evidence of the Magesterium more than sufficient.
justasking4;2406851:

You must assume all of this. There is no evidence even for this.

Certainly none that meets your criteria, justasking.

huh? Accepted by all when?

By all who understand how much Jesus loved his mother, and how pleased He is to save her from corruption.

The issue is not sola scriptura but what is the evidence for the these claims about Mary. Even if sola scriptura is wrong it still does not change the fact that there is no evidence-proof-facts for Mary being kept from sin, prayed to or assumed into heaven.

There IS evidence that Jesus loved His mother!

The resurrection of Christ.

Are you now denying the resurrection of the body, as well as the divinity of Jesus now!?

I could say the same about you. So long as you accept what your church teaches without question you will be led astray.

I can’t say I don’t question, or doubt, but Jesus has convinced me that I can trust His promises, and His HS not to lie.

I’m asking you to look at the support for these claims your church makes about her. If you are like most catholics i know, you will see that the support is not there but rely primarily on the authority of your church to teach you the truth at all times.

I think I am probably not like most Catholics you know.

It is impossible for your church to teach error no matter what is brought forth.

Well, at least if you got this much down, the thread was worth it!

If you read through the gospels you will see Jesus continually giving evidence that God was with Him by His miracles. In fact in John 10:37-38 He says that His miracles-works are a sign to them that the Father is in Him. His resurrection was ultimately witnessed by over 500 people. See I cor 15.

Exactly! Since He proved that He can raise the dead, why on earth would you think that he did not? I think people who cannot grasp this do not love their mother, or have no feelings of wanting the best for their mother.

Good. Now lets look at the support for it in Sacred Tradition. This is where we are going to need to look at history for support. It won’t do just to say “my church says its true” and that is enough. If its truly the truth then there should be solid evidence for it. Would you agree?

No need to go further with this. Don’t you think that as a catholic you have a right to see the evidence for its claims?

This is a very good question. I have to say, in returning from a long sojourn in Protestant circles, that I arrived at a new level of humility. Instead of demanding, attacking, and blustering about my “rights” I am much more able to start from a place of acceptance in faith, and add my understanding to it.

As a thinking catholic would you find it troubling if there really is not good evidence for some of its claims?

As I said, I accept evidence that is inadmissable for you, so I am not so troubled. I is true that there are many things about the Catholic faith that I don’t understand, and may never understand,but that is ok with me now.

 

[IronHammer]

What you say here is the crux of the matter. Many catholics i know when we get down to the details of doctrine and practice will evenually come to this issue of authority.
No argument there.

Since the claims that your church makes about Mary cannot be supported by scripture as i’ve tried to show, the catholic must either reject your church teachings on this matter or believe that the authority of the catholic church can never teach falsely even though there may not be an proofs of scripture to support a claim.

 

[Church_Militant]

What you say here is the crux of the matter. Many catholics i know when we get down to the details of doctrine and practice will evenually come to this issue of authority. Since the claims that your church makes about Mary cannot be supported by scripture as i’ve tried to show, the catholic must either reject your church teachings on this matter or believe that the authority of the catholic church can never teach falsely even though there may not be an proofs of scripture to support a claim.

Yet the fact that Catholics have a scriptural basis for our belief can be no less valid than your own so-called case in opposition. Because most protestants/n-Cs hold to some form of Sola Scriptura, which is itself an unscriptural doctrine, that means that Catholics will continue to reject most n-C teachings which are based upon that fundamental error in doctrine.

Since the Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God it alone is the highest authority on what a Christian should believe.

Its authority is greater than any instutions. Only its teachings are binding. What this means in the case of the marian doctrines is that since it is not taught in the Scriptures it is not binding.
What i have seen throughout these discussions here is that there is not the support from scripture to believe that it is based on Scripture. I have yet to see someone show me using proper study methods i.e. word meanings and contexts that support these claims about her. I rest my case.

As for Marian doctrines, there is ample scripture to support them as has been shown many times in teachings from the Church.

If you are frustrated with Catholics for holding to their faith, then perhaps you should understand that your arguments are badly flawed from the outset.

 

[guanophore]

Since the Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God it alone is the highest authority on what a Christian should believe. Its authority is greater than any instutions. Only its teachings are binding. What this means in the case of the marian doctrines is that since it is not taught in the Scriptures it is not binding.

Show me where this modern notion is found in scripture?
justasking4;2406884:

What i have seen throughout these discussions here is that there is not the support from scripture to believe that it is based on Scripture. I have yet to see someone show me using proper study methods i.e. word meanings and contexts that support these claims about her.

You can find a lot of this type of exegesis in other threads on Mary. Just “search” Mary, or any of the words, immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption. We have this argurment constantly.

Yes, and God chose to work through the Catholic Church CENTURIES after the books were written, to guide the Magesterium into which one’s belonged in the canon, and which did not. How is it you can accept that decision of the Magesterium, since you reject their authority?

 

[justasking4]

The Holy Spirit inspire the Church to defined what is canonical in Scripture. We can discuss this further in another thread. I don’t see how this relates to the Mary’s Assumption.

I find that the doctrines of the catholic church are interwined with other doctirnes and beliefs. Some believe that since God used the catholic church to discover the canon, that she can never err.

If you do take this challenge, the Catholic Apologists here will bury you alive if you dare challenge the authority of the Church when it regards to Canon of Scripture. I had open a thread called Deutrocanonical Books or Formation of Canon, which many of the Non-Catholic Christians fell short in their refutation.

Thanks for the warning. I’ll make sure i avoid that place and stay here with all my catholic friends.

 

[justasking4]

Show me where this modern notion is found in scripture?

Its found in the nature of what the Scriptures are. Only they are inspired-inerrant and have their source in God.

You can find a lot of this type of exegesis in other threads on Mary. Just “search” Mary, or any of the words, immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption. We have this argurment constantly.

Yes, and God chose to work through the Catholic Church CENTURIES after the books were written, to guide the Magesterium into which one’s belonged in the canon, and which did not.

I reject any authority or individual that does base its claims on the Scriptures. Each doctrine and practice is to be tested by the Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

No argument there.

What if the scriptures taught that Christ established an infallible authority by which His church on earth could all be one as He and His Father are One?

You misunderstand what i’m saying. I’m asking catholics for scriptural support for the marian claims. I never said all “Truth” is found in scripture.

 

[LilyM]

You misunderstand what i’m saying. I’m asking catholics for scriptural support for the marian claims. I never said all “Truth” is found in scripture.

But you go too far even to say that ONLY the scriptures are inspired-inerrant.

As I said in my last post, nearly every word Christ spoke during his three years of ministry, and many words the Apostles spoke, even those which weren’t written down, were inspired-inerrant.

And unless you’re willing to remain blind and be led by the blind, surely you believe that at least sometimes your own pastor is led (inspired) by the Spirit, and surely he is inerrant when this happens?

 

[Church_Militant]

You misunderstand what i’m saying. I’m asking catholics for scriptural support for the marian claims. I never said all “Truth” is found in scripture.

It’s all in the articles on the CA Library page.

Why then would you ask for scriptural support for a teaching if all truth is not found in scripture, which is the theology of most non-Catholics?

 

[justasking4]

Yet the fact that Catholics have a scriptural basis for our belief can be no less valid than your own so-called case in opposition. Because most protestants/n-Cs hold to some form of Sola Scriptura, which is itself an unscriptural doctrine, that means that Catholics will continue to reject most n-C teachings which are based upon that fundamental error in doctrine.I rest my case.

I’m not basing my arguement on sola scriptura but challenging the assumptions that are being made about the Mary doctrines that are not grounded in the Scriptures. Do you not agree with your church that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant? Do you not also agree that in regards to many of the claims your church makes about Mary are not specifically nor explicitedly taught by any apostle?

As for Marian doctrines, there is ample scripture to support them as has been shown many times in teachings from the Church.

I don’t agree. What i see catholics unwilling to do is a critical examination of these claims in light of what the scriptures say and what early church history shows.

 

[justasking4]

It’s all in the articles on the CA Library page.

Why then would you ask for scriptural support for a teaching if all truth is not found in scripture, which is the theology of most non-Catholics?

The catholic church claims there are scriptural supports and bears the burden to show this is the case. So far it has failed.

 

[Church_Militant]

The catholic church claims there are scriptural supports and bears the burden to show this is the case. So far it has failed.

In your opinion perhaps. I disagree.

 

[justasking4]

But you go too far even to say that ONLY the scriptures are inspired-inerrant.

As I said in my last post, nearly every word Christ spoke during his three years of ministry, and many words the Apostles spoke, even those which weren’t written down, were inspired-inerrant.

I never think of any pastor in this way. What is the evidence-test of an individual being led by the Spirit in this regards?

 

[LilyM]

That may be but we have no record of what these words were. All we have is what is written in Scripture.

OF COURSE we do!!! Just as you might pass on to your children things that your grandparents or parents taught you, the Apostles passed these unwritten words of Christ on to their followers.

We have examples of this chain of authority with the Apostle John, who taught Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, who either orally or in written form passed on this knowledge. In the Didache, which is pretty much contemporaneous with the book of Revelation and written by those taught by the same Apostles. And in many other places.

I never think of any pastor in this way. What is the evidence-test of an individual being led by the Spirit in this regards?

WHY ON EARTH do you listen to him then? Why be led by someone as fallible and errant as yourself? Do you think Jesus intended for us all to be forever groping around in the darkness? Or do you think along with His truth He gave us also a sure way of knowing and discerning that truth?

(And don’t say the Scriptures is that method - they didn’t exist in their fulness for the first century of Christianity, nor did He directly command them to be written nor is it ever indicated that they be relied upon to the exclusion of all else).

What do you think Jesus meant when He promised to lead His church into all truth? That necessitates that either some individual or organisation apart from Christ himself (since the Church ISN’T the same thing as Christ himself) possesses all truth - or at least all truth that we humans are capable of comprehending.

Who is that individual or that organisation in your estimation? Or did you just never think about what these words of Christ actually mean???

The test of course is Apostolic succession - the Apostles could and did pass on the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. When they did so, along with the Spirit they also passed on the same gift of being able to transmit it to others in the same fashion.

Simon Magus knew this, which is why he asked Peter to lay hands on him. Of course he made the error of thinking the Spirit could be bought. Paul knew this, which is why he sought both the approval of the Apostles and the laying on of hands by those authorised by them to do so.

 

[justasking4]

Well, none that YOU will accept!

I find the evidence of the Magesterium more than sufficient

Am i correct in understanding that its not the evidence for these things that convinces you but that your authority says its true and that is enough even without the scriptural support?

This is a very good question. I have to say, in returning from a long sojourn in Protestant circles, that I arrived at a new level of humility. Instead of demanding, attacking, and blustering about my “rights” I am much more able to start from a place of acceptance in faith, and add my understanding to it.

How do you are not being decieved by these doctrines if they are not taught in Scripture and that all men can err?

As I said, I accept evidence that is inadmissable for you, so I am not so troubled. I is true that there are many things about the Catholic faith that I don’t understand, and may never understand,but that is ok with me now.

Let me encourage you to study the scriptures and hold the teachings of the catholic church up to the light of scripture. See if these doctrines of Mary are there? See if the apostles ever taught these things.

[/QUOTE]