T
truthseeker1
Guest
Amen Brother. Tell 'em like it is!!!
- Status
T
truthseeker1
Guest
Extremely well said. God Bless You!
1
1962Missal
Guest
Does anybody remember the Dufflepuds from The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by C.S. Lewis?
Justin
B
Baruch
Guest
Interesting. The sign is “prophetic”? Recall that the text speaks of a past event (or in your view is this Christ child to be reincarnated as in other pagan religions which you frequently speak of?). The Child was already born and assumed (past events not prophetic events). He was born of the old Hebrew people not the new national Israel of today. In particular, He was born of a Hebrew Virgin that belonged to that group of people. She was not independent of them. Why must you exclude her from this image? She was obviously the central figure of whom the Messiah was born more so than “national Israel.” It was because He was born of Mary that we can say that He was born of the Jewish people in the first place. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say His mother is “Israel” but not Mary. You have a strange way of interpreting Scripture and understanding history. You pick and choose what’s “prophetic” and was has already come to pass. The Mother is prophetic but the Son is not. Give me a break! You’re allowing your “Tribulation” scheme of things to twist Scripture (a doctrine unheard of until a few hundred years ago and was not even taught by the original “reformers”). You stated that:
Finish your logic. Did you throw “common sense” out the window? Common sense should tell us that the Old national Israel gave birth to the Messiah not the National Israel of today. Hence the Woman of Revelation is Israel at large but Mary in particular. Your exclusion of the actual Mother of the Messiah from this passage reveals your extreme bias against the one that carried the God Man within her very being. I would have to agree with you on this point:
Your inclusion of every Jew except for Mary in your biased view of Revelation 12 is indeed disrespectful.
K
Katholikos
Guest
Kinsman said:
(1) You state that the NT must fulfill your personal expectations. St. John didn’t write about the Assumption of Mary, therefore, it isn’t true. That’s false logic. The NT isn’t a complete textbook in the history of the first century or an instruction book in Christianity.
(2) The Church is the sinless, errorless Bride of Christ. There is the Church and there are those who belong to the Church. The Church is not her sinful members. The Church is the very flesh of Christ, His Body.
“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor,* without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish*” Ephesians 5:25-27. The Church is, indeed, error free.
When Jesus commissoned the Apostles to teach and baptize all nations, he left them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1-2, 15:28, et al.). He didn’t expect Matthew to teach one thing and Mark another. If Christianity is true, the Catholic Church upon which it is based must be error free.
JMJ Jay
B
Baruch
Guest
Good grief. John the Apostle represents you being assumed! The command for John to go up into heaven “in the spirit” (Revelation 4:2) not in the flesh represents your bodily assumption unto the Lord! Wow, now it’s so clear. Now I see why you can believe in Sola Fide (even though Scripture is explicitly against it, “not by faith alone”: James 2:24) and why you can believe in private interpretation (even though Scripture is explicitly against it, “no prophecy of Scripture is [not was] a matter of one’s own interpretation”: 2 Peter 1:20). Wow it must be great to be your own infallible and sole interpreter of Truth. The cool things you can invent! Such is the work of Sola Scriptura.
Wait it only gets better. “Many Bible scholars” believe that John represents the Church. How crazy is that. Isn’t that what those crazy Catholics assert regarding John 19:26, 27. Isn’t that the interpretation that has come down to us from the Fathers?
Wait I forgot. Kinsman only allows such definitions and links to exist if they don’t include Mary (i.e. Mary is not part of Israel, it is a stretch to link her with the title “woman”, and of course Mary cannot be the spiritual Mother of believers). How ridiculous! Kinsman believes that it is a stretch of the imagination to believe that Revelation 12 speaks of Mary’s exalted bodily status. Yet he stretches to the other end by claiming that Revelation 4 speaks of his bodily assumption. Go figure!
Kinsman’s understanding about eyewitnesses is misapplied. The Apostles had to be eyewitness of Christ to establish Jesus as Messiah to the Jews and the Gentiles. They were eyewitnesses to His miracles that proved His identity as the long awaited Christ. The witnessing and testimony spoken of in Scripture refer to Jesus being the Christ and Son of God (and all the miracles, signs, revelations, types, and texts that prove it). Jewish people in particular require witnesses to establish truth. Without that foundation, the non-Christian Jews would not have given the Apostles the time of day. It was only after establishing Jesus as the Messiah did the Apostles reveal the doctrines and teachings of the Savior. The most important teaching being that of the Triune God. Yet we know from Scripture that there has been no eyewitnesses of the Trinity only of the Son in the flesh (John 1:14, 18; 1 John 4:12).
M
Mathetes007
Guest
Kinsman’s views of Scripture (its nature and authority) are indeed troubling. The Protestant novelties of Faith Alone, Scripture Alone, and the host of others, have no testimony from the First Century onward until their invention nearly 500 years ago. Only by twisting, arbitrarily accepting types, and distorting Scripture are these doctrines said to be Apostolic. Yet Kinsman will have no problem defending such things because he will bring up his scapegoat (false teachers arose, test the spirits, apostasy). 2 Peter 2 clearly teaches against those that hold to eternal security while addressing false teachers among the Christians (we can start another thread on this if you would like).
Other Protestants on this board are backing Kinsman’s view (“truthseeker1” and “Becky”). Their common unity is in their fight against the Church. Yet we all know full well that their divisions are endless even on essentials (i.e. baptismal regeneration, faith and works, freewill, the sacraments, eternal security, infant baptism) while attempting to maintain that Scripture and the Spirit leads them to their particular beliefs. Jesus’ prayer of the believers being one must have been a complete failure or the invisible church is a lie. The Church is the Body of Christ. What it is on the inside [spirit], it is on the outside [physical body]; one visible and invisible unity.
Any unbiased reader of all the posts will not help but see that Kinsman falters by his own standards. And now his third attempt at exegesis leaves much to be desired.
Kinsman’s incorrect understanding of 2 Timothy and 2 Peter 1 & 2 is clearly affecting his interpretation of the rest of God-breathed Scripture. Anyone that has the ability and luxury of switching doctrine, creating definitions, and inventing interpretations of Scripture at whim leaves little or no room for dialogue.
I ask that all who visit this site call upon the intercession of Mary before the throne of God to pray for Kinsman.
Other Protestants on this board are backing Kinsman’s view (“truthseeker1” and “Becky”). Their common unity is in their fight against the Church. Yet we all know full well that their divisions are endless even on essentials (i.e. baptismal regeneration, faith and works, freewill, the sacraments, eternal security, infant baptism) while attempting to maintain that Scripture and the Spirit leads them to their particular beliefs. Jesus’ prayer of the believers being one must have been a complete failure or the invisible church is a lie. The Church is the Body of Christ. What it is on the inside [spirit], it is on the outside [physical body]; one visible and invisible unity.
Any unbiased reader of all the posts will not help but see that Kinsman falters by his own standards. And now his third attempt at exegesis leaves much to be desired.
Kinsman’s incorrect understanding of 2 Timothy and 2 Peter 1 & 2 is clearly affecting his interpretation of the rest of God-breathed Scripture. Anyone that has the ability and luxury of switching doctrine, creating definitions, and inventing interpretations of Scripture at whim leaves little or no room for dialogue.
I ask that all who visit this site call upon the intercession of Mary before the throne of God to pray for Kinsman.
B
Baruch
Guest
By this I mean the “Rapture” doctrines that separate Protestants.
K
Kinsman
Guest
Here again you’re making things up to fit your own theology. Pure rationalization and speculation. The Genesis account regarding creation says NOTHING about Eve’s divine “gift” of painless childbirth. After she sinned God cursed the woman with the words, *“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.” *This seems imply that Eve, before the fall, would have experience some minor pain in childbirth, but now, because of sin the pain would be greatly increased. This perfectly descibes the woman in Rev. 12: “and she cried out being in labor and in pain to give birth.”
But let’s face it, in context the woman is a symbol, and as a symbol she cannot be the exalted, sinless Mary of Romanism. When I’ve discussed this with Romanists before they’ve claimed this passage proves Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. But this passage doesn’t portray a woman exalted in Heaven, sitting on a throne operating as “Queen,” but a woman in pain giving child birth. Her offspring is caught up to Heaven and there sits on God’s throne, but she hightails it off into the wilderness being persued by the “dragon.”
It’s a prophetic sign, not even close to describing Mary’s alleged Assumption.
K
Kinsman
Guest
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. They too just repeated things they were told. Sound familiar?
M
Mike_Rainville
Guest
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Mary was without original sin and death is the punishment for sin, therefore Mary did not die. Luke continues to describe the action of the Holy Spirit in forming the Messiah in her pure womb, the first tabernacle.
Catechism 1008
Gen 2:17; 3:3; 3:19; Wis 1:13; Rom 5:12; 6:23;
'And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” ’ Luke 1:28f
[Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII
Apostolic Constitution defining “ex cathedra” (from the chair of Peter) the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin)](http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM)
Mary was without original sin and death is the punishment for sin, therefore Mary did not die. Luke continues to describe the action of the Holy Spirit in forming the Messiah in her pure womb, the first tabernacle.
Catechism 1008
Gen 2:17; 3:3; 3:19; Wis 1:13; Rom 5:12; 6:23;
'And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” ’ Luke 1:28f
[Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII
Apostolic Constitution defining “ex cathedra” (from the chair of Peter) the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin)](http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM)
M
Mike_Rainville
Guest
Mike Rainville:
is
The Church has not pronounced on this specific point.
Just to clarify, the Church statement of Dogma in this document
is
I like to think she did no more than fall asleep, and I read somewhere, I can’t remember the source, that she may have accepted the sleep of ACTUAL death to be more like her Son.
The Church has not pronounced on this specific point.
M
MariaG
Guest
This thread started with the statement, There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary.
Biblical reference was supplied. Even though you choose to disagree with the interpretation, it doesn’t mean a biblical reference is not there.
Catholics base the assumption of Mary through Scripture, but mostly through the ORAL Tradition of the church. The Bible says His word will not perish. The Bible also tells us not everything has not been written down. The Catholic church says that oral word is Tradition. We, as Catholics, cannot throw out God’s word (oral or written) just because we don’t like it or want “proof” in writing.
The assumption of Mary and the issue of Scripture alone are close together since the Assumption is based primarily on Oral Tradition. It is not changing the subject to bring up that point, it is bringing up a vital point of difference between Catholics and Protestants.
Catholic don’t choose the throw away any of His word, written or oral. Protestants have thrown out the Oral Tradition as well as some of God’s written word.
Since the Bible tells us to hold fast to those things I have written to you and told you, who is the better “Bible” Christian, those who still hold fast to those things told (orally) to us, or those who ignore God’s oral words along with some of His written words?
God Bless
Biblical reference was supplied. Even though you choose to disagree with the interpretation, it doesn’t mean a biblical reference is not there.
Catholics base the assumption of Mary through Scripture, but mostly through the ORAL Tradition of the church. The Bible says His word will not perish. The Bible also tells us not everything has not been written down. The Catholic church says that oral word is Tradition. We, as Catholics, cannot throw out God’s word (oral or written) just because we don’t like it or want “proof” in writing.
The assumption of Mary and the issue of Scripture alone are close together since the Assumption is based primarily on Oral Tradition. It is not changing the subject to bring up that point, it is bringing up a vital point of difference between Catholics and Protestants.
Catholic don’t choose the throw away any of His word, written or oral. Protestants have thrown out the Oral Tradition as well as some of God’s written word.
Since the Bible tells us to hold fast to those things I have written to you and told you, who is the better “Bible” Christian, those who still hold fast to those things told (orally) to us, or those who ignore God’s oral words along with some of His written words?
God Bless
P
Pax
Guest
Why did you find it necessary to either misquote me or to misinterpret what I wrote in my post. I did not state or admit that the Marian doctrines “are not developed from an exegetical study of the scriptures” Nor did I ever say that, “they’re based and developed on the opinions of men, required to be accepted and believed simply because to those men it is seemed reasonable.”
You are, at best, being somewhat contentious in characterizing my statements in this fashion. You apparently failed to recognize the exegesis that was offered. Simply because you disagree with an interpretation of scripture does not mean that there was a lack of exegesis. Your approach to my post in this regard could simply be reversed and used against any teaching from any source. The difference is in interpretation not exegesis. While you will not give me credit or the church for exegesis on Marian doctrines, I will give you credit for attempting to use exegesis to refute it.
Your interpretation based on your exegesis is a late comer to Christianity and is not from “the original church.” You can contend that your interpretation is better, but your intepretation has not been supplied by the “church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Morever, your interpretation lacks the historical track record, and even deviates from the teachings of the founders of Protestantism. It isn’t scripture or exegesis that’s in question, but interpretation. So ask yourself a question? Should I trust my own interpretation and that of some like minded faith community or should I trust the original teachings passed on by the apostles and their successors in oral tradition that is consistent with scripture?
The exegesis that was presented on behalf of the Catholic teaching on the Assumption was presented by me, a rank amateur, but it is in keeping with what we know of an all powerful loving God who sent His divine son, Jesus, to save us. Jesus and Mary had a unique relationship of mother and son that you seem to dismiss as insignificant. Understand that relationship and you will begin to appreciate Catholic exegesis and interpretation. Until then, I suspect that your readings of the verses I supplied in my former posts will remain sterile and incomplete. Never under estimate the love and power of our God.
P
Pax
Guest
Thank you for expressing your opinion and interpretation, but you are simply ignoring the fact that there are many levels in the message. Our interpretation based on the scriptural connections we supplied is, in our opinion, more complete than yours. There is simply no compelling reason(s) for anyone to limit these passages in the book of Revelation to your view.
One other interesting thing that I find about the Book of Revelation and the connection of the “Ark” with the woman clothed with the sun, is that this book was written by John. It was John who was given Mary to take as his mother at the foot of the cross. He became her son. And in this scene scripture describes him as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” rather than giving the name, John. Scriptural messages apply to all of us, and at that moment Jesus gives his mother to all disciples that love him. Finally in Rev. 12:17 we’re told, “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.”
Kinsman will no doubt take exception to these connections, but again this is interpretation. It seems quite interesting that the apostle John, the one who took Mary as his mother, was writing these inspired words in the Book of Revelation. We have a marvelous, loving God who through his son, Jesus, has made us “adopted sons and daughters,” and He has in his love given us a mother.
B
Baruch
Guest
In re-reading the posts, I think Mathetes is right in saying that Kinsman sets standards that he himself does not follow. He claims that others are engaging in eisegesis, which he has clearly done in his attempts at exegesis. He says that the assumption comes up late in history but doesn’t deal with the Protestant novelties and interpretations that came up 1500 years after the fact. Then he sinks into saying that the Bishops of the Catholic Church must somehow travel back in time to know what the Apostles taught, but then goes on to say that the Woman of Revelation somehow sprung backward into time to give birth to the Messiah and then leaped forward again to represent national Israel. Frequently he asserts that others are bringing their erroneous views into Scripture without seeing that he himself does the same thing. His posts are permeated with such accusations.
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (The Words of the Lord Jesus, Matthew 7:1-5).
K
Kinsman
Guest
WHAT??? The sign John sees unfolds the historical outline of the birth of Christ through the chosen nation of Israel (the woman). It then transports him into future events which directly involve that nation during their time of “tribulation” (Satanic persecution and flight into the wilderness). Amazingly consistent with the O.T. Hebrew prophets and N.T. writers.
“Old Hebrew people” vs. "new national Israel?" That’s a false dichotomy. Your analogy is like saying the prophecies regarding the first advent of Christ were valid only for the “Hebrew” people before the Babylonian captivity, but not for the nation restored after the exile. Yet God recognized that restored nation and Messiah Jesus came to it, and its Temple, fulfilling literally the prophecies concerning His first advent. My friend, have you not read what the prophet Jeremiah said through the Holy Spirit regarding that nation? Referring to the sun, stars and moon:
“If this fixed order departs from before Me, declares the Lord, Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a NATION before Me forever” (Jer. 31:36).
Every time you look up in the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars still shining brightly in their fixed order, let it be a testimony against you, and a reminder of what God spoke through the prophet. Israel is once again back in its ancient homeland, against all odds, because God is faithful and will fulfill His prophetic plan and unconditional covenants made with that nation - for He also said to the prophet, “…I am watching over My word to perform it” (Jer. 1:12). Yes, Mary gave birth to the Messiah, but that woman in Rev. 12 is not directly about Mary, but the nation itself concerning her future flight into the wilderness where she will be nourished for “a time and times and a half time,” protected from the “serpent” whose desire is to destroy her. For she must AGAIN receive her Messiah, only this time in belief (Zech. 12:10; cf. Rom 11:25-29).
(1) The doctrine of the “Tribulation” period is a major theme throughout both Old and New Testaments Scriptures. It’s hardly new - even Christ Himself spoke of it (Matt. 24:1), as did the prophet Daniel centuries before Him (Dan. 12:1). (2) Just because men don’t teach it doesn’t make it unbiblical. (3) The “reformers” erroneously retained Romanism’s Augustinian-Amillennialism. They were kept busy fighting to restore major soteriological doctrines of the Bible such as justification by faith in Christ alone.
K
Kinsman
Guest
Bottom line: They’re not developed from an exegetical study of the Scriptures. And this is a true statement because: (1) The Bible itself does not refer to nor recognize Mary as the "ark of the New Covenant." That is an exclusive, extrabiblical, RC idiom. (2) Nor does the Bible know anything about her alleged bodily Assumption. To this fact all Romanists on this thread have finally admitted.
Your problem and difficulty lies in the fact that you employ these two extrabiblical dogmas when interpreting a Biblical text (Rev. 11:19-12:6). You can’t claim your doctrines are “based” and “developed” on an exegetical study of the Scriptures when you employ extrabiblical teachings to interpret Biblical texts. I’m sure this must make some sense to you.
D
DianJo
Guest
There is another source that talks about Mary that no one has mentioned.
It’s the “Protoevangelium of James”. This is the James that was head of the Jerusalem church. It speaks to her being full of grace, her virginity and the special things God did specifically for her.
It can be found at @ www.newadvent.org under “Fathers”. Although, I doubt that the non-Catholics will find it any more revealing than all the references that have been given in this tread.
Just a thought.
It’s the “Protoevangelium of James”. This is the James that was head of the Jerusalem church. It speaks to her being full of grace, her virginity and the special things God did specifically for her.
It can be found at @ www.newadvent.org under “Fathers”. Although, I doubt that the non-Catholics will find it any more revealing than all the references that have been given in this tread.
Just a thought.
1
1962Missal
Guest
Kinsman said:
You throw around “extrabiblical” like it is a swear word. We’ve practically shouted from the hilltops in your presence that we don’t go by the Bible alone, and your response is, “See! I gotcha!”
Here. Lets state it once again so that you don’t keep crowing how you’ve “proved” something about the Church that we’ve known all along. The Church does not derive all her knowledge from Scripture Alone. However, the Magisterium, using the lens of Sacred Tradition, does see the light of Scripture is a way that is not the same as the way that it is seen, alone. Not only do we admit that, we proclaim it proudly. We state forthrightly that the Church sees testimony to the Marian doctrines in Scripture, but does not derive the doctrines by exegetical study of Scripture, alone, divorced from Sacred Tradition. The Assumption is part of that Tradition of which Scripture is a subset.
What is more, we say that we believe in the Assumption based on the authority of the Church to infallibly discern and propose truths for the faithful to believe.
As for the silence of the first four Christian centuries, I would say that the Marian doctrines are dependent doctrines. The depend entirely upon who we say Jesus is. If you are familiar with the controversies of the early Church, you will know that they were Trinitarian and Christological in nature. It wasn’t until the Person and Natures of Christ were clearly defined-- focused, so to speak–, that the light of who He truly is could shine on His mother and allow the Church to realize her unique place in the scheme of things. The doctrine of the Assumption was not committed to writing for four hundred years after the event, not because it wasn’t believed, but because attention was elsewhere.
I am sure you won’t accept this. Your prejudices tell you that, for some thing to be true there must be written evidence. The concept of oral Tradition is alien and repugnant to you. But there it its.
Justin
p.s. We are Catholics. We are members of the Catholic Church. Our faith is called Catholicism. I grow incredibly weary of the terms “Romanist” and “Romanism”. They are pejorative and are no more acceptable than “Bible-thumper” or “fundie”. They are the religious equivalent of racial slurs. Please refrain from using such language or you will be reported to the board moderators.
- Status