Was saint Mary taken up to heaven?

[stewstew03]

There is no good reason to believe in this dogma. One will only accept it if one blindly follows Roman Authority.

Your use of the phrase “Roman Authority” reveals your anti-Catholic sentiments. Try to be respectful while you participate in this Catholic forum. Hopefully you are here to learn about our faith, and not merely to insult us and regurgitate anti-Catholic rhetoric.

With that aside…

As I’ve told you before, you also “blindly follow” Catholic Traditions such as the Trinity. .

 

[stewstew03]

In either case, one can not deny that the Church did have authoritative writings to guide them which was to my previous point.

One can certainly deny it if they so choose. How do you know the Church got it right?

The Christian Church has always held up scripture as the standard for which dogmas and beliefs should be based.

This seems like an argument for Tradition. What does scripture say about the standard for truth? I had assumed the Bible alone was your norm for Christian doctrine.

We must all face together the reality that every opinion and tradition must be tested and tried on its own merits

.

Good. We can probably assume, then, that you have not been indoctrinated by a sect that teaches the tradition of Sola Scriptura. In other words, you didn’t believe it because your pastor said so, I’m sure you actually found Sola Scriptura right there in the bible after testing it on its own merits… [relax, I’m not going to call you out for not being able to point to an actual verse in the Bible that teaches Sola Scriptura].

Further, I do not understand how Catholics can constantly complain about “new” ideas and then hold to the bodily assumption of Mary! Or papal infallibility! If “new” is bad than your own principle is used against you. There simply IS NO EVIDENCE of any early patristic father making a case for Mary’s assumption.

Even if there were - how would that persuade you?

 

[Boywonder23k]

One can certainly deny it if they so choose. How do you know the Church got it right?

This seems like an argument for Tradition. What does scripture say about the standard for truth? I had assumed the Bible alone was your norm for Christian doctrine.

Good. We can probably assume, then, that you have not been indoctrinated by a sect that teaches the tradition of Sola Scriptura. In other words, you didn’t believe it because your pastor said so, I’m sure you actually found Sola Scriptura right there in the bible after testing it on its own merits… [relax, I’m not going to call you out for not being able to point to an actual verse in the Bible that teaches Sola Scriptura].

Even if there were - how would that persuade you?

How is my saying "roman authority offensive? How does a respectful Protestant phrase that? Most of your comments were ad hominen in nature and weren’t really relevant in light of the previous exchange. Mostly just random changes in topic. I would encourage you to answer the challenges posted in the context of the previous conversation instead of simply trying to turn the tables and pursue your own favorite pet topics. I’ll wait for a more serious and respectful comment to respond to.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I would like very much to challenge your “book of answers” comment and see if we can tie it into this threads topic. First of all I do not agree that the Bible being treated as a book of answers is new. As I have already said Jesus treated scripture in this way. Also, for an easy example, see Athanasius writings and see that his view of scripture was very protestant in nature. The Christian Church has always held up scripture as the standard for which dogmas and beliefs should be based.

So your position is that the Catholic Church got it wrong for 1,200+ years until Luther showed up and cleaned up. So then how was anyone saved?
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Your argument is a loser because Jesus CAN in fact accomplish His will of giving everyone, including the billions who lived during those 1,200+ years, the ability to know the truth. But since there were no Bibles during that time except through the Catholic Church, the Church must have had the correct ability to interpret Scripture–otherwise known as Tradition.

 

[stewstew03]

How is my saying "roman authority offensive?

Because this is a false premise: “There is no good reason to believe in this dogma. One will only accept it if one blindly follows Roman Authority.”

How does a respectful Protestant phrase that?

You can start by NOT assuming that “One will only accept [insert Catholic dogma] if one blindly follows Roman Authority.”

Most of your comments were ad hominen in nature and weren’t really relevant in light of the previous exchange.

Just in case the irony has escaped you, allow me to point out other examples of ad hominem on this thread:

The bottom line is that historically the church invented tradition when it found itself doing things that had no biblical support. When they had an impossible time proving tradition then came papal infallibility to silence all critics.

Catholics prove “Tradition” by… Well… Saying because the Church says so. I don’t want to be in that world. Not a healthy way for humans to think (or not think).

And as far as changing topics… you brought up the following:

1. Circumcision
2. Papal infallibility
3. the Trinity
4. Tradition
5. Soteriology
6. Protestant rule of faith
7. the material sufficiency of scripture

Now, Boywonder, you’ve claimed that our Church acted irrationally and misled believers when it “invented things like tradition.” You’ve claimed the Church did this out of convenience because what the Church was doing was so obviously anti-scripture. Then, you made the claim that the Church became entangled in its web of deception and so made up this doctrine of “papal infallibility to silence all critics.”

My questions to you were to get you to understand your own errors. You charge us with blindly following “Rome,” so I ask - why do you believe in the Trinity? [No response from Boywonder].

Another poster, Patrick457, countered your second point to Linda Marie, to which you responded:

one can not deny that the Church did have authoritative writings to guide them.

So, I ask - how do you know the Church got it right? What’s your authority? Is it Scripture? If so, point out the chapter/verse in the Bible. [No response from Boywonder].

You said Scripture was the only standard of truth, so I ask - what does Scripture say about the standard of truth? Is it only Scripture? If so, point out the chapters/verses in the Bible that says we must only use Scripture as our standard of truth. [No response from Boywonder].

You are already convinced that

“There simply IS NO EVIDENCE of any early patristic father making a case for Mary’s assumption.”

You placed “no evidence” in all caps for emphasis. This means you’ve already determined that Mary’s Assumption is false - made up by a Church who deceives believers and ensures that no one will question it by silencing all critics with a declaration of “papal infallibility.” Therefore, you clearly would not accept the kind of evidence you have demanded (i.e., “an early patristic father making a case for Mary’s assumption”).

So, I ask - how would such evidence even persuade you in light of the straw man you’ve constructed? [No response from Boywonder].

Tell me, Boywonder, why are you here? Is it your aim to convince Catholics that the Church is deceiving us? Are you proselytizing? You clearly don’t want anyone challenging you (as evidenced by your recent response to me), and you clearly have your mind made up about the Church. Why not be honest about your anti-Catholic beliefs?

 

[Linda_Marie]

@ Linda Marie-

1. Why must things have biblical support? Our lord Jesus Christ constantly found the need to base his actions and teachings from scripture.

There was no New Testament when Christ walked the earth. The scripture to which He refers is the Old Testament, in particular, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scrolls in use by the Jews at the time.

Jesus did not need to justify Himself from scripture. Did His Authority come from scripture? Was the New Covenant ever mentioned in the Old Testament? How could He teach something that wasn’t in scripture?

1. The Bible came later, much later, and was determined by the Church? The Bible was Canonized much later… But the Church always had the apostles writings and viewed them as scripture. It’s not like all of a sudden in 400 AD the bible flew from the sky and was “discovered”. Peter (the “Rock”) referred to Paul’s writings as scripture while he was still alive. Do Catholics not agree with this fact of history?

The Church has not “always had the apostles writings and viewed them as scripture”. There was no scribe following Jesus about and writing down everything He said. Nor were all the writings included in the Bible written by the Apostles. Mark and Luke, for instance, were not Apostles. The Gospels were written from memory - from Tradition, the first dating some 40 years after the death of Jesus. The earliest writing we have, the First Letter of St. Paul to the Thessalonians dates from about 50-60AD, 20-30 years after the death of Jesus. So, for at least 20 years, there was nothing written down about the Teachings of Jesus. Only Tradition or Oral Teaching was available.

For hundreds of years after the death of Christ, various churches had various writings, but not all the churches had the same writings. The church in Antioch might have the Gospel of John, and the Didache while the church in Corinth might have had the letters of St Paul to the Corinthians, but not to the Colossians. They might also have had the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. They had no Bible. They had no New Testament. They had an assortment of writings, some of which were divinely inspired and some which taught error.

To what use did the early Church put these writings? They were being read to the people during the Liturgy of the Word.

By 325, the Church recognised that there were a lot of writings circulating as divinely inspired and being used in the liturgy of the Church, however, not all of them were actually divinely inspired.
Early Christian Writings
As you can see, there were a lot of writings.

Thus, they held the Council and gathered together all the writings in circulation to discern among them. While the Gospel of Matthew might always have been divinely inspired, it was the discernment of the Council which declared it to be so, while discerning that the Gospel of Thomas was not.

How did they determine that? Criteria used by apostolic fathers to determine canon.
In addition to some of the other criteria, they compared what was in the writings to what was taught by Tradition.

What reinforced the consensus of belief:

Orthodoxy: This theological concern led the early church to employ the "rule of faith" as the criterion of "orthodoxy" to determine which writings could be used in the church. Bishop Serapion (ca. 200) rejected the reading of the Gospel of Peter in church because of this criterion of truth. When asked by the church at Rhossus ... whether the Gospel of Peter could be read in their services, he at first agreed because it had an apostle's name attached. But later he reversed his decision saying, "since I have now learnt, from what has been told me, that their [the authors'] mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come again to you; wherefore, brethren expect me quickly." His rejection was based upon the book's divergence from what was generally accepted as true in the churches. It was not because of its questionable authorship, though that may have played a small role, but because the theology was considered out of step with the "rule of faith" operating in the church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 428, 2002)

Furthermore, materially, scripture covers all truths necessary for salvation. Scripture contains the very Gospel that The Church holds up. How then does it make since to say that Scripture is subject to the Church and not vice versa?

Who taught you that scripture materially covers all truths necessary for salvation? Whose Authority are you accepting when you accept this premise? Does the Bible make this claim about itself?
Jesus did not found a bible to contain all truths necessary for salvation. He founded the Church. The Church later produced the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The determination of Scripture was subject to the Authority of the Church.

The Bible does not give the Church Authority. It is the Church which gives the Bible its authority and it has never claimed that it contains everything necessary for salvation. It is the Church, not the bible, which teaches everything necessary for salvation.

 

[Linda_Marie]

What exactly ARE these teachings that were passed around orally by Jesus and the Apostles that weren’t written down? Was the bodily assumption one of them? If so, why doesnt anyone seem to know about it for the first 4-5 hundred years of Church history?

See the Catechism and yes, the Assumption of Mary is one of them. It is obvious from the quote from the Patriarch of Jerusalem that this was a belief held from the times of the Apostles, since the apostles are cited as concluding that her body was taken up into heaven.

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES

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.”
In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: “Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.”

Mary in the Early Church and Today
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin – Quotes of Early Church Fathers

1. Why accept the Church’s Authority to determine divinely inspired writings but not to declare that the Mother of God was taken up to Heaven, body and soul?
   To put it simply I do not believe that the Church determined scripture. Am I to believe that the Catholic position is that Mathew wasn’t actually inspired authoritative God breathed scripture until some council said so? Werent the words inspired the moment they touched paper? .

Whether the words were inspired the moment they touched paper or not, how would you know? I mean, reading it, it sounds like so much fantasy; Jesus healing people with a touch or rebuking the wind and having it obey Him, etc. How did you determine that the Gospel of Matthew was divinely inspired? I think that you probably learned it at your mother’s knee and that it is on her authority that you accept it, not because any person can ‘just tell’.

Also it should be noted that scripture has apostolic pedigree. This is something we know as a historical fact not just something we know “because mother church says so”. The same cannot be said of the Assumption. .

What historical sources are there about the Apostles that were not preserved by the Church? A few references to people thrown to the lions? What historical sources are there to the existence of Paul, for instance, that are not from Church documents?
In Search of the Historical Paul
beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/03/In-Search-Of-The-Historical-Paul.aspx
The History of the Apostles
allaboutjesuschrist.org/history-of-the-apostles-faq.htm

The New Testament has ‘apostolic pedigree’ because the Church decided that those writings without it were not to be included. This is why the letters of Clement were not included, although they contained no error and are useful for spiritual development.

In short… There is no good reason to believe in this dogma. One will only accept it if one blindly follows Roman Authority.

I can only assume that you do not realize how insulting it is to say that Catholics blindly follow Roman authority. We are neither blind nor stupid. We do not stick our fingers in our ears saying nananananana to keep from hearing anything other than what the Church teaches. ‘Roman’ used like this, is a pejorative. It is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Church.

As for a good reason to believe it, do you believe in the Resurrection of the Body? Do you believe that your body and soul will be rejoined and taken up to heaven?

The Assumption completes God’s work in her since it was not fitting that the flesh that had given life to God himself should ever undergo corruption. The Assumption is God’s crowning of His work as Mary ends her earthly life and enters eternity. The feast turns our eyes in that direction, where we will follow when our earthly life is over.
The feast days of the Church are not just the commemoration of historical events; they do not look only to the past. They look to the present and to the future and give us an insight into our own relationship with God. The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.

 

[Boywonder23k]

Stew-your rant is growing tiresome. You are not responding to the challenges I raised in the context of the current Convo. You are combining and entangling every post I’ve written thus far and taking all comments out of context. If you have nothing to say on topic move on. No one is making you stay on this thread if you are so very (easily) offended. I am here because I am interested in hearing Catholic answers to my Protestant objections. Hence… Catholic answers… If you would like to ask me off topic questions that would disrupt the current relevant Convo please feel free to message me. I am not “anti-catholic” I simply don’t agree with catholic theology. I’m also not “anti-Methodist” I’m just not one.

Linda-do you hold to the opinion that the Old Testiment is less inspired than the New? If not then how does it matter what scripture Jesus quoted from? Is it not all God breathed revelation sacred and set apart? Indeed much of the old testiment does speak of the new testiment as the new covenant is the fulfillment of the old. The fact is that Jesus DID justify himself from scripture even though he did not have to as his authority and scriptures authority are one and the same and stem from the same source. The apostles ALSO frequently justified their Christian beliefs by quoting and drawing from scripture. I just don’t see how you are going to deny this? Would you like chapter and verse? Is that really necessary? It’s literally all throughout the new testiment.

I will accept the correction that the early Church did not always have scripture. There was roughly 20 years without any writings at all. But this is certainly not the normative state of the Church as you will surely admit. That has nothing to do with our current day. Those 20 or so years are the exception not the rule. Again, you are sneaking in the presupposition that during those years something ELSE was being taught that wasn’t in scripture that is important for salvation… And again I ask… What were these oral traditions!!! The bodily assumption of Mary? Papal infallibility? I would like an answer to this question please as it is crucial to your overall case.

The Church did use Tradition as one of the ways to verify scripture. And The Church was right to do so! Tradition is a very useful tool especially for identifying flagrant heresies such as the ones found in the gnostic gospels. The Church also used other means as you also noted. These means are still defended today but Christian scholars such as Norman Geisler and F F Bruce. The New Testiment still stands the test Of history today apart from the decrees of councils!

You really lost me on your last paragraph. Who taught me that scripture contains all truths necessary for salvation? Glad you asked. Please reference 2 Timothy 3:15. How does the Church make scripture authoritative?!?! Sacred scripture is GOD BREATHED it is authoritative by its very nature! Does the word of God need to wait on a council before the Word of God becomes binding? Stop trying to hold the party line and listen to what your saying for goodness sakes.

 

[Boywonder23k]

Linda you responded that the assumption of Mary WAS one of those Traditions being passed around in the first years after our lords death… And then cited a source 450 years after the fact… That is quite the leap don’t you think?

And again you said “even if the books are inspired” how would I know without someone to tell me infallibly. I can know the same way the Early Church knew! The only difference between the way that I know and the way that you know is that you baptize the same arguments I would use with “infallibility”. That’s it. That’s the only difference. Other than that Catholic and Protestant scholars use the same evidence to defend the canon. I say that it is a fallible collection of infallible books. You use the same evidence I do and say that you have a infallible collection of infallible books. What in the world does that have to do with anything?!?

 

[patrick457]

I would like very much to challenge your “book of answers” comment and see if we can tie it into this threads topic. First of all I do not agree that the Bible being treated as a book of answers is new. As I have already said Jesus treated scripture in this way.

I’d like to tackle this from a different angle. To be honest, I don’t particularly like engaging in debates or apologetics that much, so this is more of a simple historical explanation on my part. But before that, one unserious nitpick: of course Jesus wouldn’t have treated the Scriptures as a book of answers because (1) they used scrolls (the codex only coming into popularity much later), and (2) there was not a ‘book’ (or rather, a ‘scroll’), but scrolls.

Now to be more serious, let’s rewind a bit. The cultural idea of the Bible as a “book of answers” portrays it as a book of ready-made black-and-white certainty, something you could pick up like your morning paper, something in which you could find convenient, easy answers ready for the picking. (Kind of explains why some folks out there do that whole ‘Bible flipping’ thing, which kind of irks me personally: IMHO the Bible is not a Magic 8-Ball and should not be treated as such.) In fact, this is how sola scriptura is sometimes interpreted beyond the Reformation: it is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter, and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine. In other words, scriptura solum. But this is not how things really worked in Judaism and Christianity.

Interpretation of Scripture did not simply involve picking up a scroll and trying to passively divine its meaning by reading the words. Rather, it was an active and creative process in Judaism and early Christianity, involving not a single individual but the whole community. (Which is what distinguishes it from that ideal of ‘each man for himself’ trying to make sense of the different Writings.) The Jews had devised a system of exegesis called midrash, wherein the Scriptures are not just simply explicated, but creatively recast and updated (whichever term you prefer - you could even say ‘twisted’) to be able to speak to contemporary situations, to bring to light new insights and teachings. This could be achieved by doing things like either giving a commentary on a certain passage (the ‘overt’ type) or reframing a portion of the OT in a contemporary setting (the ‘covert’ type).

We can see Jews did not pretend that Scripture is easy to understand: indeed one task of the ancient interpreter was to deal with linguistic difficulties (“What the heck does the word abrek in Genesis 41:43 mean?”), real or imagined gaps (“The Law says that ‘Thou shalt do no work on the Sabbath,’ but what exactly constitutes ‘work’?”) and perceived contradictions (“So, is Balaam a good or a bad guy after all?”) within the text, and the fact that the development of ideas and changing times usually led to the apparent meaning of the record of earlier times being deemed unacceptable or even offensive (“Why did Jacob resort now and again to not-so-virtuous trickeries to outwit people?”). This is the realm of ‘pure’ exegesis which attempts to harmonize and smoothen out Scriptural difficulties.

Later, we also begin to see the rise of ‘applied’ exegesis, wherein the point of departure was no longer the Torah itself, but contemporary customs and beliefs that the interpreter attempted to connect with and justify using Scripture. The rise of this method was apparently connected with the rise of the Pharisees, who were a progressive group mainly composed of lay teachers: since the Pharisees were unable to claim authority by reason of hereditary status (such as priests) or high professional training (such as the scribes), one could say that they were obliged to defend their ideas using arguments solidly backed by Scripture. Out of this necessity an exegetical technique of exegesis soon arose which conformed to well-defined rules known as the middot. Although these were often employed in a scholarly demonstration of the validity of traditional exegesis, the middot were principally useful to the interpreter seeking to forge a link between the Torah and oral teachings handed down from previous generations. The written Torah and oral Law (Scripture and Tradition) were together considered to represent authentic Judaism, and upon the fall of the Second Temple efforts were made to amalgamate the Oral and Written Torahs with one another, the end results of course being the Mishnah and the Talmud.

 

[patrick457]

When the Pharisaic sages read Scripture they did not always agree in how to employ ‘applied’ exegesis in different passages: indeed, scholarly debate was so central to the Pharisaic tenet. In debating and disagreeing over the meaning of the Torah or how best to put it into practice, no rabbi felt that he (or his opponent) were in some way rejecting God or threatening Judaism. It was not seen as something divisive, but as a way to grasp the divine will and to imitate God (a rabbinic idea has it that God and the heavenly court are perpetually engaged in Torah study in Heaven). This is part of the reason why in the gospels, Jesus seems to almost always debate with the Pharisees whenever they appear.

The establishment and adoption of ‘applied’ halakhah in the different Pharisaic schools created a dichotomy in legal exegesis: as a solution, the rabbis took care to distinguish between the peshat or plain sense, and the darash or derived sense of Scripture. Peshat is by no means always the literal meaning of Scripture: it could very well be ‘pure’ midrash so hallowed by time that it came to be accepted and identified with Scripture itself. Later Rabbinic Judaism further refined these different senses, which is summarized in the acronym PaRDeS (which also serves as a pun for the word pardes ‘orchard’, i.e. ‘paradise’): the literal sense or peshat (“plain”), the allegorical meaning or remez (“hint”), the comparative meaning or darash (“to seek;” cf. midrash), and the mystical meaning or sod (“bone”).

By the inter-testamental era, the aristocratic Sadducean priests in charge of the Temple apparently were content to follow a literal interpretation of the Scriptures which appeared to confirm them as divinely-appointed leaders of the nation. Not surprisingly, their complacent attitude was rejected by everyone else, each with their own proof-text and ‘applied’ exegesis: the Pharisees (who considered the synagogue within the sphere of the divine Shekhinah that dwelt in the Temple; Exodus 20:21), the sect at Qumran (who thought the Temple to have been corrupted due to the wickedness of its priests; Habbakuk 2:17), the Christians (who believed the Temple to have been effectively supplanted by the community of believers, i.e. the Church), and even the priests in the Temple of Onias in Egypt (who contended that their temple is equal in status to that of Jerusalem; Isaiah 19:18-19 LXX).

We could see in his letters that St. Paul engages in this sort of ‘applied’ midrash: take for example Deuteronomy 21:22-23. “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God.” In the original context, the passage deals with what to do with the corpse of someone who has been executed. Paul takes this passage from its original context and reframes it into a new one: the crucifixion of Jesus, since Jesus after all was also hung on a ‘tree’ (albeit not overnight). Thus, Paul says, Christ has become “cursed” for the sake of saving others who are otherwise accursed (Galatians 3:10-13). Jesus Himself does a bit of this now and again, and some would even argue that the canonical gospels themselves are midrashim in narrative form.

In fact, we have quite a lot of examples of ‘applied’ exegesis found particularly, but not exclusively within the New Testament itself and the Dead Sea Scrolls: eschatological prophecies taking as their model the book of Daniel. For example Daniel 9, where the seventy years of exile are said to mean, in reality, seventy weeks of years. Furthermore, the author’s epoch is understood to coincide with the last few years immediately preceding the “appointed end” of the “desolator” Antiochus Epiphanes. Following this pattern the Community at Qumran that (1) beyond its obvious sense, biblical prophecy contains a hidden allusion to the last days; (2) these last days have already begun; and (3) the Community are the chosen elect of the end times. Thus the Qumran commentators read in the text a detailed account of the past, present and future history of their sect, and simultaneously prove its predestination. The book of Habbakuk, which foretold the coming of the Chaldeans at the end of the 7th century BC, is recast to mean the coming of the Romans; the persecution of the just man is taken to be fulfilled in the story of the sect’s founder, the Teacher of Righteousness; Habbakuk’s words, “The righteous shall live by his faith,” is interpreted to mean that faithful members of the community will be saved at the end. Numbers 24:17, “A star shall come out of Jacob,” is itself subject to applied exegesis, due to it being considered a messianic prophecy (cf. Jesus, Bar-Kochba).

Applied exegesis also had one function. Aside from its influence on the recasting of Jewish law when altered historical circumstances demanded a new definition of observances, it also had an impact on the consequent changes in religious thought.

(To be continued)

 

[Boywonder23k]

Patrick that’s all very interesting… But it really doesn’t have anything to do with this thread. Hopefully you will at least attempt to tie in the history lesson with why the. Lily assumption of Mary should be believed. I do not believe that we should be bound it previous less efficient means of hermeneutics and exegesis. Just another example of how “new” can be a good thing. We don’t need to use extreme allegorical methods of interpretation to make all passages relevant for today. However, the bible (or scriptures or scrolls) were used constantly as the bar for which all doctrines and theologies should be tested. However, the exegesis was performed.

 

[Cat_Herder]

And again you said “even if the books are inspired” how would I know without someone to tell me infallibly. I can know the same way the Early Church knew!

By distinguishing between the early Church and the Catholic Church you are again claiming a great apostasy which is as unbiblical as it gets. If you think Jesus wouldn’t be able to allow the billions of Catholics who lived between the “early” Church and the Reformation to know the truth and be saved in accordance with His will (1 Tim 2:3-4) then God is not omnipotent and you are left with no God at all, like Mormonism. Of course, since they WERE saved and had the truth, God must have PROTECTED that truth and those who taught it. That is what infallibility means.

 

[stewstew03]

Patrick that’s all very interesting… But it really doesn’t have anything to do with this thread. Hopefully you will at least attempt to tie in the history lesson with why the. Lily assumption of Mary should be believed. I do not believe that we should be bound it previous less efficient means of hermeneutics and exegesis. Just another example of how “new” can be a good thing. We don’t need to use extreme allegorical methods of interpretation to make all passages relevant for today. However, the bible (or scriptures or scrolls) were used constantly as the bar for which all doctrines and theologies should be tested. However, the exegesis was performed.

Okay, Boywonder, since you refuse to answer any of my questions, I’ll just point you to the following scripture (already pointed out by [user]CatHerder[/user], I believe) with a suggestion that you pray for wisdom and discernment:

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:1-18[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Cachonga]

Sorry for the delay, but I’ve been under the weather for a bit.
Cat Herder:

You’re reading into the Bible something that isn’t there on the basis of necessity. The Assumption must be there out of necessity as well (lest the Lord be making a false statement about people still being alive), and yet you apply a different standard to the Assumption than to the rapture simply because the Assumption is Catholic. And unlike the rapture, the Assumption actually is there in Rev. 12 (I know you dispute that but we’ll get there in a moment.)

Hang on a minute. You’re the one who first mentioned the rapture (see post #48). I was asking you to clarify what you meant by the “rapture”. I have examined Scripture, and find that there will be a catching up in the air, but that will be to meet Jesus as He returns to Earth (like Palm Sunday on a celestial scale). I find no basis for a rapture as most Protestants think of it. I believe my view is much closer to what the Catholic Church teaches, but I did not reach that opinion because of any Catholic document, decree, encyclical, etc…

In short, I categorically deny that I am using any kind of double standard for the rapture and assumption.

As far as Matt 16 and Matt 24, if you go back to Matt 16, and read from verse 24 onward, you will see that Jesus is addressing His disciples. If you follow the Gospel, you will note that it was after this that He took Peter, James and John up on the mountain where He was transfigured and spoke to Moses and Elijah (BTW – Moses had died and was buried in secret by God, yet he was still able to be bodily present with Jesus on the mount. This was, apparently, a glorified body. Seems likely to me that even if the woman of Rev 12 was Mary, that could be a glorified body as well, not an assumed body).

In Matt 24, the disciples asked 2 questions (And when he was sitting on mount Olivet, the disciples came to him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world? Matt 24:3 DR). When shall these things be was asked about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (no stone will be left upon another Matt 24:2). His answer appears to cover both questions, and, indeed, this is a prophecy that was fulfilled in the lifetime of those who heard Jesus (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple), and there are still portions to be fulfilled at the 2nd coming. Still, John was a witness to these things as recorded in Revelation, and he was certainly alive when he witnessed and wrote them down, so there is no problem with what Jesus prophesied, and no reason that Mary (or anyone else) would need to be bodily assumed.
Cat Herder:

Who do you think that Woman is, then? Israel? I don’t see the Woman turning around and crucifying the man-child, which is exactly what Israel did. Or are you going to say that John saw the Woman crucify Jesus in his vision on the same basis of necessity with which you write the rapture in there? Then why didn’t he write it down (unlike the Assumption), and why did he issue this warning:

According to early commentaries and patristic sources, the woman of Rev 12 (as taught by the early Church) was the Old Testament Church (not all Isrealites had the faith of Abraham, and so were not all of the OT Church). Messiah came out of the OT Church, which was finally taken into heaven. The children of the OT Church are the Christians of the NT Church.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Sorry for the delay, but I’ve been under the weather for a bit.

Hope you feel better. If it’s bad, maybe you should go get anointed by a priest? There’s nothing like actually experiencing God’s love. It tends to put arguments like this one to rest very quickly.

Hang on a minute. You’re the one who first mentioned the rapture (see post #48). I was asking you to clarify what you meant by the “rapture”.

Not one verse in Revelation shows any Christian being caught up to heaven-- except this:

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:13-14[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, you say the Woman is OT Israel. But no such catching up of OT Israel has ever occurred. So yes, you are using a double standard.

As far as Matt 16 and Matt 24, if you go back to Matt 16, and read from verse 24 onward, you will see that Jesus is addressing His disciples. If you follow the Gospel, you will note that it was after this that He took Peter, James and John up on the mountain where He was transfigured and spoke to Moses and Elijah (BTW – Moses had died and was buried in secret by God, yet he was still able to be bodily present with Jesus on the mount. This was, apparently, a glorified body. Seems likely to me that even if the woman of Rev 12 was Mary, that could be a glorified body as well, not an assumed body).

Heaven is a state, not a place; an assumed body is simply a glorified body that never experienced death.

In Matt 24, the disciples asked 2 questions (And when he was sitting on mount Olivet, the disciples came to him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world? Matt 24:3 DR). When shall these things be was asked about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (no stone will be left upon another Matt 24:2). His answer appears to cover both questions, and, indeed, this is a prophecy that was fulfilled in the lifetime of those who heard Jesus (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple), and there are still portions to be fulfilled at the 2nd coming.

Jesus did not say that only some of those things would be fulfilled. He said they ALL would. All of your arguments about John, etc. ignore this fact.

 

[kwortham]

It is disquieting that this silly question (Was saint Mary taken up to heaven?) has come up. God gave us brains. Use them!

First, the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the Church says that Mary was assumed into heaven. Only the Catholic Church can trace its history back 2000 years, so it is the pillar and ground of truth. Mary was assumed because the pillar and ground of truth said it.

Second, Christ was made flesh and came to earth to fulfill the law. The law, including NT law, says that you have to honor your parents. If Christ, having power over death, let His mother die and rot in the ground, then He broke the commandment to honor His mother. If Christ broke this commandment, then He sinned. If Christ sinned, then no one has any hope of salvation!

If you question the assumption of Mary, then you are questioning your hope of salvation.

 

[Cachonga]

Cat Herder:

Hope you feel better. If it’s bad, maybe you should go get anointed by a priest? There’s nothing like actually experiencing God’s love. It tends to put arguments like this one to rest very quickly.

Thanks. Did that many years ago. Have no intrest in any such sacrament today.

Not one verse in Revelation shows any Christian being caught up to heaven

I guess Rev 4:1 (which some Protestants use to justify a pre-trib rapture) doesn’t count. Also, keep in mind his perspective while reporting these things was from heaven. Those who were taken up did not go all the way to Heaven (which IS a real place), but met Christ “in the air” (1 Thes 4:17) as He was returning to Earth with His army (which is recorded in Rev 19:11-16.

Now, you say the Woman is OT Israel. But no such catching up of OT Israel has ever occurred. So yes, you are using a double standard

No, the early Church taught that the woman was the OT Church. Not a double standard for me to happen to agree with the early Church on this point.

Heaven is a state, not a place; an assumed body is simply a glorified body that never experienced death.

Texas is a state AND a place (I think about the most wonderful place on Earth, but I’m a bit biased in that opinion, and I admit it). If Heaven is a state and not a place, could you please explain what Jesus meant when He told the repentant thief that “Today you will be with me in Paradise”. I realize that we are straying off topic a bit, but that sometimes cannot be avoided.

Jesus did not say that only some of those things would be fulfilled. He said they ALL would. All of your arguments about John, etc. ignore this fact

And John witnessed them all.

 

[kwortham]

It is disquieting that this silly question (Was saint Mary taken up to heaven?) has come up. God gave us brains. Use them!

I am quite certain that I don’t like my tone in my previous post. The original question was asked by someone simply asking a question. My terse tone was not in response to that, but it was in response to some of the protestant denials. Regardless, I regret the tone set in this earlier post. However, I do stand by the two points made later on in the post.

 

[mark_a]

Thanks. ** or we have some kind of evidence for it?**

As is the same case as her Son, no apostolic Christian Church claims or has ever claimed to have her relics.