John's Gospel & Epistles

Bro Curtis,

What part of "AND BY YOUR PRAYERS" don't you understand.

Blessings

 

Her prayers deliver people from death?

How, being dead herself, is this possible?

 

"eye has not seen, nor ear heard what God has ready for those who love him".

Do ya think Mary loved him. You figure it out. By the way, what makes you think she is dead or are you one of those soul sleep people.

 

First off, I applaud your effort to stay on topic in this thread but when you think someone else breaching it gives you carte blanc to say whatever you want and not have to defend it, we have an issue. So answer my question.

"What you don't understand is the complete silence of the Bible on Mary's ascension. "

Yes, you are right. The Bible is completely silent about Mary's ascention. On the other hand I have dealt with the questoin of the assumption. It is not silent on that, though it does not deal with the actual event.


"Ron says the RCC doesn't teach Mary's ascension. Is this your stance too ?"

Yep, that's my stance. Mary did not ascend by her own power. She was assumed into heaven by God's power. Jesus ascended on his own power.

"Jeremiah 23:16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD. "

You meant to post that on the rapture thread didn't you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Very good, Thessalonian.

 

No.

You reject Tradition.

Requiring it to be written down in Scripture is your tradition.

Please show the supporting Scripture for "it has to be written down".

BTW, I notice your insistance in sticking with the word "ascention" rather than "assumption".

As has been pointed out the doctrine is "Assumption".

Any particular reason for persisting in your error?

 

Error, yes. You continue to use a word with different meaning even after it has been pointed out to you.

Is this a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the beliefs of another?

You ignore what thessalonian posted as evidence from Scripture.

Why do you not adress that?

I also notice that you fail to make any case for your requirement that it be specifically spelled out in Scripture.

Before imposing this upon others, you need to show where Scripture specifically states that all doctrine must be specifically stated in Scripture.

Please answer with Book and verse.

 

Curtis and Trajic, I am not expecting you to understand what I am about to say so, while you certainly are free to comment, exepct it to be taken with a grain of salt. The Lord simply hasn't revealed these things to you so there isn't much I can do about it.

Carson and Grant, since you are both going to theological schools as I undertstand, I would like your comment. You too try2.

I am glad that I posted that little remark about the rapture above because it got me thinking. The reason for the dogmatization of the millium + old assumption doctrine are not simply because some heavy handed pope or council wanted to excercise their authority and impose a burden on the ignorant faithfull. Certainly we have an obligation as Catholicis to not dissent in matters of dogma. But the reason this dogma and other marian dogmas are so important is because of Mary's role as a type of the Church and to hlep us reflect on things to come. All Marian doctrine applies to the Church and our understanding of it in some fashion. The assumptin in particular could be reflected upon with regard to the Church in the last days when we will be "caught up" as Paul says in Thes 4:17 to meet him. We will be ressurected and then our assuption as the Church will take place as we are raised high to the Glory of God by his power, in to our heavenly resting place. Perhaps one of you has some writtings on this that you have run accross, as I am just allowing my mind to wander on a little theological speculation. Now I think we would have the rapturists falling all over themselves with regard to this dogma except for one problem. Mary went through a tribulation of sorts when she watched the passion and death of her son at Calvary.

Blessings.

 

I gave my understanding of why this might be and liked some of the other answers I heard. No point beating a dead horse. There is no ascention of Mary, though a Catholic may acidently use the word that an anti-catholic has put in his head, while still understanding it from a correct theological view. That is after all what is important, that it happened by the power of God, not Mary inventing a space shuttle way before her time.

Blessings.

 

The Tradition that Mary was assumed into Heaven is "prophesy"?

Like I pointed out, Catholics believe that Scripture supports oral Traditon, not just written.

Your man made doctrine, not supported by Scripture, is that it must be written down.

I am still waiting for your Book and verse that says it must be written down.

Because I believe that God speaks to us through the Church.

You have the burden of proving that Scripture says that everything must be written down. The verses that you offered so far come no where near that.

 

I think she's dead because her heart ceased beating at some point. That usually, if it lasts long enough, qualifies a person as "dead."

 

Is it that God hasn't revealed the above to me, or that it makes very little cohesive sense?