The Assumption!

[kepha1]

Mr. Marat, I don’t think you have any idea what development of doctrine means. This is evident in most of your posts. The mechanism of handing down the Gospel message orally was not arrested with the written word. In the same light, the teachings of the Assumption is not dependant on the written word alone, but what was handed down AFTER the Epistles were written, so demanding proof text from scripture or the earliest of church fathers IS GROSSLY UNFAIR. Furthermore, we Catholics hold fast to the traditions given to us, and I accept the Assumption because the Holy Spirit gives Sacred Tradition the same protection from error as with Sacred Scripture. This is what you unbiblically refuse to accept. If vast quantities of early church fathers writings is a criteria for your acceptance, then why do you reject the vast quantites of early church fathers writings on baptismal regeneration or the Real Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? More was written on those subjects by the ECF’s than anything else, but you reject all of it. Your demand for vast quantities of evidence for the Assumption is hypocritical, and it is dependent on unbiblical rejection of the Catholic definition of Tradition.

"By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church’s previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm."
therealpresence.org/eucharst/manual/section1/sec1_12a.pdf

If you want supporting bible verses for doctrinal development I would be glad to provide them.

Incidently, all the early Protestant reformers accepted and taught Mary’s perpetual virginity. You are protesting Protestantism as well, which means you are accepting man made ideas that didn’t come about until 100 years after the Reformation. But you reject what Sacred Tradition says the Apostles saw with their own eyes…Mary’s empty tomb.

So you want me to believe the Apostles hid Mary’s body and made false claims, and 400 years later the ECF’s (who just compiled books of the Bible) lied about the Assumption and nobody noticed this alleged deception for 1300 years???

 

[JP_Marat]

won’t try to debate this on this thread.
Papias clearly does show early 2nd century understanding that they were cousins, Way before Jerome.

Children of these cousins were probably alive when this was written.

At the very least I don’t see how u can refuse it exists.

RESPONSE:

On the contrary, I’m not refusing to recognize it. What I’m evidencing is that it had** nothing to do with the brothers of Jesus.**

It mentions two James’, presumably James the Greater and James the Less, both of whom were apostles. But neither was James the brother of Jesus, who was a different James, Jamaes the Just. Of course, some apologists try to pretend otherwise to support the perpetual virrginity legend.

From the History of the Church, Eusebius (c 300 AD), Book II, chapter 2, paragraph 2:
" Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the** brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ**, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Note also, that James the Just, not Peter was made bishop of the first Christian community. Also note from that time on. James’ name was mentioned ahead of Peter’s

 

[JP_Marat]

Mr. Marat, I don’t think you have any idea what development of doctrine means. This is evident in most of your posts. The mechanism of handing down the Gospel message orally was not arrested with the written word. In the same light, the teachings of the Assumption is not dependant on the written word alone, but what was handed down AFTER the Epistles were written, so demanding proof text from scripture or the earliest of church fathers IS GROSSLY UNFAIR. Furthermore, we Catholics hold fast to the traditions given to us, and I accept the Assumption because the Holy Spirit gives Sacred Tradition the same protection from error as with Sacred Scripture. This is what you unbiblically refuse to accept. If vast quantities of early church fathers writings is a criteria for your acceptance, then why do you reject the vast quantites of early church fathers writings on baptismal regeneration or the Real Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? More was written on those subjects by the ECF’s than anything else, but you reject all of it. Your demand for vast quantities of evidence for the Assumption is hypocritical, and it is dependent on unbiblical rejection of the Catholic definition of Tradition.

"By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church’s previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm."
therealpresence.org/eucharst/manual/section1/sec1_12a.pdf

If you want supporting bible verses for doctrinal development I would be glad to provide them.

Incidently, all the early Protestant reformers accepted and taught Mary’s perpetual virginity. You are protesting Protestantism as well, which means you are accepting man made ideas that didn’t come about until 100 years after the Reformation. But you reject what Sacred Tradition says the Apostles saw with their own eyes…Mary’s empty tomb.

So you want me to believe the Apostles hid Mary’s body and made false claims, and 400 years later the ECF’s (who just compiled books of the Bible) lied about the Assumption and nobody noticed this alleged deception for 1300 years???

RESPONSE:

The “Development of Doctrine” ploy is the excuse to invent new dogma. One can increase understanding of existing dogma, but one cannot develop (create) new dogma, as Vatican I points out.

Revelation ended with the last apostle. All the rest is man-made.

Have you ever considered posting in black alone? It’s difficult to take a multicolored post seriously.

 

[JP_Marat]

Kepaha posted:

“So you want me to believe the Apostles hid Mary’s body and made false claims, and 400 years later the ECF’s (who just compiled books of the Bible) lied about the Assumption and nobody noticed this alleged deception for 1300 years???”

RESPONSE:

No. I want you to believe that the location of the grave was forgotten, just like the grave of St. Joseph (unless you want to claim that he had an Assumption too).

No Church Farther until the 7th century had anything to do with it. The story developed from spurious (false) writings of the 4th and 5th century as admitted even by the Catholic Encyclopedia.

If you claim otherwise, **please give us the quotation and citation **of an Church Father before the 7th century regarding the Assumption (or at least not later than the 4th or 5th century.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Your ultimate argument is that the same phraseology is used with reference to Noah and that Noah must have been assumed, also.

I’m open to Noah’s assumption since, IMO, that strengthens the arguments for Mary’s Assumption.

Can you refer me to any Church document that speaks of Noah being assumed?

Well, initially I can refer you to a Church document verifying that Enoch was assumed: Hebrews 11:5!

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

story of the Church

, Eusebius (c 300 AD), Book II, chapter 2, paragraph 2:
" Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the** brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ**, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Note is does not say his mother was Mary it reiterates that Mary was a virgin.

Note also, that James the Just, not Peter was made bishop of the first Christian community. Also note from that time on. James’ name was mentioned ahead of Peter’s

This is unclear as to what time on you are referring to. You do realize he was put first on the list because according to tradition the oldest were listed first?

 

[JP_Marat]

Kepha 1:

So you want me to believe the Apostles hid Mary’s body and made false claims<<

RESPONSE:

What “false claims” are you refering to? The Apostles said nothing about any Assumption. Once again, that was a much later invention.

However, they didn’t bother to record where Mary or Joseph were buried. They didn’t think it important. Mary had a very limited role after the nativity narratives and no Marian cults developed until much later.

JPM

 

[adrift]

Eusebius (c 300 AD), Book II, chapter 2, paragraph 2:
" Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue

The use of the term surname makes me wonder about the accuracy of this quote. It could be just a matter of translation but surnames weren’t used until about the 13th century.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Well, initially I can refer you to a Church document verifying that Enoch was assumed: Hebrews 11:5!

Moses’ body was also apparently assumed after death, like Mary. See Jude 9. That would explain why he was seen with Elijah, previously assumed alive, at the Transfiguration.

 

[adrift]

Moses’ body was also apparently assumed after death, like Mary. See Jude 9. That would explain why he was seen with Elijah, previously assumed alive, at the Transfiguration.

8 [9] The archangel Michael . . . judgment: a reference to an incident in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. Deut 34:6 had said of Moses, literally in Greek, “they buried him” or “he (God?) buried him” (taken to mean “he was buried”). The later account tells how Michael, who was sent to bury him, was challenged by the devil’s interest in the body. Our author draws out the point that if an archangel refrained from reviling even the devil, how wrong it is for mere human beings to revile glorious beings (angels).

Deuteronomy 34: 5,6

So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said;

6
and **he was buried in the ravine **opposite Beth-peor in the land of Moab, but to this day no one knows the place of his burial.

 

[adrift]

Kepha 1:

So you want me to believe the Apostles hid Mary’s body and made false claims<<

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

Note the Apostles concluded does not mean they said nothing.
From Dr. Carroll’s history book St. John a critic of the Apocrypha none the less states that despite the unreliability of much of the material in the Apocrypha the traditions recorded in the “Passing of Mary” that the Apostles were present is worthy of belief.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Deuteronomy 34: 5,6

Hi, adrift.

Neither The Assumption of Moses nor the Testament of Moses survived intact. Writers speculated that the missing parts portray God burying Moses, and that speculation came to be regarded as “gospel.” It isn’t. It’s unsubstantiated speculation by folks who just assumed that God buried Moses.

In fact, the spiritual purpose of telling us that Moses’ burialplace is something “no one knows” would be to complete Moses’ foreshadowing of Christ, who rose!

Contrary to those speculating about the lost works’ content, Jude, to be consistent with Deuteronomy, would have been aboput Michael assuming Moses’ body up.

In part, such an assumption “elegantizes” Matthew 17:3 – both who appeared with Christ in the Transfiguration had a reason for being there – assumption!

 

[KyivAndrew]

JP Marat - since you reject this particular infallible doctrine, and never responded to whether you belief in the resurrection of Christ (the most fundamental Catholic/Christian belief), what about the Immaculate Conception? - do you deny that fundamental infallible doctrine as well? and, if so, on what basis (not judging, but trying to understand) do you call yourself “Catholic” in your status?

Blessings,

Brian

Robbinson. JP Marat does not just deny the Immaculate Conception, he rejects the Physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ PERIOD, as I found out on another thread. I asked him point-blank what became of Christ’s body after the crucifixion had He not been raised, and Marat postulated it must have just been thrown in somewhere with the corpses of the rest of the crucified men.

HaHa. In the 30s and 40s A.D. the enemies of the Way and the Christ movement could have surely pointed to such a burial site of Christ to disprove the “fantasies” of Christ’s disciples in Jesus’ Resurrection then gaining wide acceptance. They couldn’t because Christ had Risen. JP Marat doesn’t believe in this central tenet of our Faith and looks for minor Biblical discrepancies to banish the whole belief in Jesus’ Resurrection as conventionally understood and the witness of all his disciples and apostles.

In the pursuit of honesty, I believe this is where he is coming from, to debunk our Catholic Tenets. His handle is JP Marat who was a bloody French Revolutionary intent on destroying the Catholic Church. I asked him once about this. He didn’t respond. I assume he is pursuing this gadfly role on Apologetics but would be more than glad to hear him say that he is honest when he proclaims Catholic in the right-hand corner as his belief. Barring that, he looks like he is intent on criticizing our central beliefs IMHO (the Bodily Resurrection of Christ being the chief one). He can correct me if I’m wrong.

p.s. Marat didn’t answer your question yet on this thread when you asked him whether he believes in Christ’s resurrection. I wonder why that could be? He could have easily stated where he is coming from. Just my opinion. God Bless.

 

[panevino]

RESPONSE:

On the contrary, I’m not refusing to recognize it. What I’m evidencing is that it had** nothing to do with the brothers of Jesus.**

It mentions two James’, presumably James the Greater and James the Less, both of whom were apostles. But neither was James the brother of Jesus, who was a different James, Jamaes the Just. Of course, some apologists try to pretend otherwise to support the perpetual virrginity legend…

so does that mean that you accept that the Mary noted as mother of “James the less” and of Joses in at the crucifixion in Mark 15:40 is not the BVM?
this would mean that BVM is also not the mary listed as mother of James and Joses listed in mat 27:56 either

this has some implications when cross referenced with John 19:25
now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.

if jesus brother is not James the less,
and it is not the james son of zebedee mat 10:2
and it is not james son of alphaeus mat 10:3

i dont know - i dont think there are anymore James in the bible.

unless of course you say that there are two Mary’s who both called sons James and Joses. (ie: mark 6:3 & mat 27:56)

 

[thistle]

so does that mean that you accept that the Mary noted as mother of “James the less” and of Joses in at the crucifixion in Mark 15:40 is not the BVM?
this would mean that BVM is also not the mary listed as mother of James and Joses listed in mat 27:56 either

this has some implications when cross referenced with John 19:25
now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.

if jesus brother is not James the less,
and it is not the james son of zebedee mat 10:2
and it is not james son of alphaeus mat 10:3

i dont know - i dont think there are anymore James in the bible.

unless of course you say that there are two Mary’s who both called sons James and Joses. (ie: mark 6:3 & mat 27:56)

Mary, the wife of Clopas, is the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
The sons of Mary, wife of Clopas, are James and Joseph which makes them cousins of Jesus.

 

[JP_Marat]

so does that mean that you accept that the Mary noted as mother of “James the less” and of Joses in at the crucifixion in Mark 15:40 is not the BVM?
this would mean that BVM is also not the mary listed as mother of James and Joses listed in mat 27:56 either

this has some implications when cross referenced with John 19:25
now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.

if jesus brother is not James the less,
and it is not the james son of zebedee mat 10:2
and it is not james son of alphaeus mat 10:3

i dont know - i dont think there are anymore James in the bible.

unless of course you say that there are two Mary’s who both called sons James and Joses. (ie: mark 6:3 & mat 27:56)

RESPONSE:

Perhap’s you haven’t read Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul in which James the brother of Jesus is frequently mentioned,

James the brother of Jesus’ death in 62 AD is recorded by the Jewish historian of that period, Josephus , Antiquities Book 20: chapter 9 :

" Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

 

[panevino]

RESPONSE:

Perhap’s you haven’t read Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul in which James the brother of Jesus is frequently mentioned,

James the brother of Jesus’ death in 62 AD is recorded by the Jewish historian of that period, Josephus , Antiquities Book 20: chapter 9 :

" Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

Thanks for the reply
do are u saying there are 4 James in the bible
James the less brother of joses
James son of zebedee brother of John
James son of alphaeus
James brother of the lord

 

[JP_Marat]

Thanks for the reply
do are u saying there are 4 James in the bible
James the less brother of joses
James son of zebedee brother of John
James son of alphaeus
James brother of the lord

RESPONSE:

I’d have to check on all the James’s, but the James of interest is James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

JPM

 

[JP_Marat]

Some apologists claim that the brothers of Jesus named in Mark 3:20 and Matthew 13:55 were really “cousins” since Aramaic doesn’t have a word for “cousin.”

However, they are ignoring the fact that the New Testament waas written entirely in Greek, not Aramaic.

And Greek has a very specific word for “brother” (adelphos) and a different word for “cousin” (anepsios).

In Col 4:10 Paul, who would be expected to know about Jesus’ relatives, correctly described Barnabas and Mark as “cousins” (anepsios). But Paul always refers to James as the “brother” (adelphos) of Jesus.

In fact, nowhere in the Greek New Testament are Jesus’ brothers referred to as other than brothers, and never as “anepsios” or cousins.

JPM

 

[panevino]

Some apologists claim that the brothers of Jesus named in Mark 3:20 and Matthew 13:55 were really “cousins” since Aramaic doesn’t have a word for “cousin.”

However, they are ignoring the fact that the New Testament waas written entirely in Greek, not Aramaic.

And Greek has a very specific word for “brother” (adelphos) and a different word for “cousin” (anepsios).

In Col 4:10 Paul, who would be expected to know about Jesus’ relatives, correctly described Barnabas and Mark as “cousins” (anepsios). But Paul always refers to James as the “brother” (adelphos) of Jesus.

In fact, nowhere in the Greek New Testament are Jesus’ brothers referred to as other than brothers, and never as “anepsios” or cousins.

JPM

Yep, So then to reconcile this with mat 27:56 and mark 15:40 you must the believe that there is another Mary that also called sons James and joses
ie mat 27:56 who is listed In parallel verse as Mary mother James the less and joses in mark 15:40

or do u say that this Mary is bvm and authors just decided to leave out the name of jesus from list of children.

Option 2 is a problem for you I think because then the brother is James the less ( which u have said it can’t be ie it’s really James the just)
if option 1 … I don’t know there are a lot of mary’s and James so maybe but seems a stretch - I note there are not as many joseseses