Catholic Question ???

[Walter]

As DHK mentioned, Jesus gave an example of how to pray to the Father at the request of the Apostles. But He did NOT exclude requesting for intercessions from our fellow brothers and sisters. Again, you are misunderstanding prayer to always mean Worship. The fact that you aren't seeing the use of the word prayer properly does not nullify what takes place in Luke. The Rich man, 'prayed' to Abraham, and the events of the parable occur in the after life. This example is used in the practice that Jews understood. It is not in favor of Protestant translations or any Protestant argument in this thread so far. Most of the time on this board when this example is brought up, the persona of the Rich man is attacked rather than deal with the action of prayer in use between the dead. DHK's extreme interpretation fails to deal with the fact that Jesus gave an example of how to pray, not that he excluded all prayer in general. Jesus knows that the word prayer doesn't always mean Worship, unlike some of you realize. Worship is very clearly outlined in Malachi and it is concerning the partaking of the clean oblation at the table of the Lord. It is sacrificial and not limited to simple requests.

 

[DHK]

As DHK mentioned, Jesus gave an example of how to pray to the Father at the request of the Apostles. But He did NOT exclude requesting for intercessions from our fellow brothers and sisters. Again, you are misunderstanding prayer to always mean Worship. The fact that you aren't seeing the use of the word prayer properly does not nullify what takes place in Luke. The Rich man, 'prayed' to Abraham, and the events of the parable occur in the after life. This example is used in the practice that Jews understood. It is not in favor of Protestant translations or any Protestant argument in this thread so far. Most of the time on this board when this example is brought up, the persona of the Rich man is attacked rather than deal with the action of prayer in use between the dead. DHK's extreme interpretation fails to deal with the fact that Jesus gave an example of how to pray, not that he excluded all prayer in general. Jesus knows that the word prayer doesn't always mean Worship, unlike some of you realize. Worship is very clearly outlined in Malachi and it is concerning the partaking of the clean oblation at the table of the Lord. It is sacrificial and not limited to simple requests.

First, give clear examples of prayer that are not worship.
The story (and that is what it was) a story, of the rich man and Lazarus cannot count. First there was no prayer. He did not pray to Abraham. He requested Abraham to send Lazarus to him, and then to his five brethren. He did not pray to him. That was not a prayer.

Jesus did give an example of "how to pray."
His disciples came to him and asked: "Lord teach us to pray."

Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

And here is what Jesus replied:
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Prayer is always addressed to God (except in idolatry), and it is always worship. This is what Christ taught.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I haven't heard this before. The 39 Articles of Religion do not seem to give room for both views and I have yet to read of or talk to an Anglican who holds to a symbolic view of baptism or communion. U.S. But then, a reading of some of the 'Articles of Religion' would seem to be contrary to Anglo-Catholicism. On what do you base this?

On my knowledge, academic and personal, of the diverse schools of thought within Anglicanism. The majority is between the two extremes, but those "bookends" are represented.

 

[Walter]

This is so sad. Someday when you stand before the Lord, you won't be laughing, or think those things are "funny".

I rolled my eyes so far back I’ll probably need surgery to have them set right.

You need an eyeroll alert for posts like this!

 

[Walter]

Let's stay with the text, the Scripture, and not read into it things that are not there. Put away biases and RCC theology.
First, "saints" in heaven cannot hear our prayers. The text does not say that, and there is no Biblical evidence that they can. Therefore all prayers to anyone else but God Himself is idolatry.
Secondly, It is only you or the RCC that claims that God "allows" them to receive those prayers. Please find Scripture that supports that view. It is totally unbiblical.
You say, "those heavenly saints then present those prayers..." But that is not true. That is not even what the text says. It specifically says that an angel presented a censer holding the prayers of the saints, which means that the prayers are symbolic.

John is witnessing and recording this scene. Presumably he is accompanied by an angel. There are seven angels about to blow there trumpets. But now "another angel" has a censer with much incense and the prayers of the saints, appears. He offers it on the altar before the throne.
In the scene then are John, an angel, and the throne of God; that is all. There is no company of saints present which you assumed. There are seven other angels ready to pour out God's wrath on the earth, but no saints in this picture. It is purely symbolic of the prayers, and in context, prayers of the Tribulation saints, coming up to God.
God answers in a most dramatic fashion:

Revelation 8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.
He takes the contents of the censer and casts it onto the earth. The result is thundering, lightning, and an earthquake, indicating that the Coming of the Lord is soon, and soon this will all be over. The prayers of the Tribulation saints (on earth) will soon be answered. They must have some more patience.

No, it is scriptural. Yes, it includes prayer.
Look at Scripture. Not only do we have 1Tim.2:5, which indicates that Christ is our mediator, the only mediator between God and man.
But:
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--He is our advocate, our lawyer. Again the only one that can come between us and God.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
--In the OT levitical system they had a high priest to intercede on their behalf. We have a great high priest who intercedes for us daily.

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
--He ever lives to make intercession. He is the only one that can do that.

There are many other Scriptures as well. These are just the ones that come to my memory.

[/B]No, that is false. I cannot mediate for you, especially in the sense that you think a RCC priest can. It can't be done. I can pray for you and that is all.

You pray TO her, directing your prayers TO her, which is idolatry. You don't pray to any of us do you? Praying to Mary is idolatry. Prayer is worship. Mary is thus worshiped. Look at all the different prayers that are prayed to Mary both by Pope John Paul II, and by Legouri. They were very devoted to her. That adoration and adulation given her is nothing more than idolatry. It is the worship due only to God, and that God is robbed of.

"Hail Mary..."
"Our Father..."
Mary is worshiped more.
You fail to recognize what idolatry is.

One definition of mediate is to: intercede Christians do this for each other all the time.

"1 This, first of all, I ask; that petition, prayer, entreaty and thanksgiving should be offered for all mankind, 2 especially for kings and others in high station, so that we can live a calm and tranquil life, as dutifully and decently as we may.[1] 3 Such prayer is our duty, it is what God, our Saviour, expects of us, 4 since it is his will that all men should be saved, and be led to recognize the truth; 5 there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, who is a man, like them, 6 and gave himself as a ransom for them all."

Point 1-4 Paul asks us to Mediate (intercede for each other)
Point 5-6 Because Christ is the eternal bond between the Father and Man.
You have to view 1 Tim 5 in light of the previous verses.

 

[DHK]

One definition of mediate is to: intercede Christians do this for each other all the time.

"1 This, first of all, I ask; that petition, prayer, entreaty and thanksgiving should be offered for all mankind, 2 especially for kings and others in high station, so that we can live a calm and tranquil life, as dutifully and decently as we may.[1] 3 Such prayer is our duty, it is what God, our Saviour, expects of us, 4 since it is his will that all men should be saved, and be led to recognize the truth; 5 there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, who is a man, like them, 6 and gave himself as a ransom for them all."

Point 1-4 Paul asks us to Mediate (intercede for each other)
Point 5-6 Because Christ is the eternal bond between the Father and Man.
You have to view 1 Tim 5 in light of the previous verses.

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Let's break it down:
I exhort you that: supplications, prayer...FOR all men...that we may lead...for this is good...in the sight of God...who will have all men to be saved...for there is one God...

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

...who gave himself...I will that men pray every where.

All prayer is TO God. All prayer is worship. Prayer may be for others. It may be intercession and supplications. Look at the example that James gives about prayer:

James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
--Just before this James says: "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Fervent prayer, even for another, does not come without worship. Take the Lord's Prayer, not to quote and recite mindlessly as many Catholics do when they hurry through their rosaries. But as Jesus said "after this manner," IOW, to use as a model. Approaching God in his holiness first, "Holy is thy name." Spend time worshiping God praising him of his holiness, of who he is and what he means to you.

Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Praise God in his holiness. The Psalms do much of this.
Confess your sins to God, not to a priest. Why?
1John 1:9 commands us to.
Psalm 66:18 tells us that if we have sin in our heart the Lord will not hear our prayers.
The above indicates that if we do not come and worship the Lord first, then it will be useless to even attempt and intercede for others. Prayer involves worship.

Again take the example of Hannah. Hannah wanted one thing. She wanted a son. This was her request. How does she approach the Lord?

1 Samuel 1:10 And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore.
11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no rasor come upon his head.
12 And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth.
13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard:

The ESV translates verse ten this way:
(ESV) She was deeply distressed and prayed to the LORD and wept bitterly.
She was grieved. She wept as she prayed. In verse 13 we see that her prayer was from her heart. Her lips moved but her voice was not heard. Here was a Godly woman who grieved to have a son, and came to the Lord weeping, worshiping, continuing in prayer (vs.12). It was not just a simple request. She remained a long time in prayer. The context, if you read it, is that she prayed day after day, year after year.

Psalms 126:5 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.
6 He that goes forth weeping, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.
--A Christian's work bathed in the prayer of tears will finally bring forth fruit. Prayer is worship. Prayer is work. Prayer is difficult. Prayer is not saying a rosary. Prayer is getting on one's knees and communing with God--worshiping Him, praising Him, interceding for others, but most of all staying in fellowship with Him.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What gives you the right to assert that history and precedent mean the same thing.

I haven't. I will explain again. Precedent is defined as

: prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance -Myriam Webster Dictionary

The example given is

behavior that may be explained by a precedent event in her troubled life -Myriam Webster dictionary

Further definition states

1: an earlier occurrence of something similar
2 : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind 3: a person or thing that serves as a model

History of the events which occured in the scripture attest to, as has been defined here, a precedent. God prior to now performed these things and by doing so set the precedent that he can and not only do these things but can do them again. There is no indicator in any of the examples you have given that God refuses to again will to do these things again. And in many of the examples you have given God did in fact do them more than once. Establishing the principle that God can and will do these things as he sees fit. He is not limited to number of times. And in fact Jesus himself promises

12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

So we have a precedent set ie the principle that these prior actions can and are willed to occur by God providing the possiblity that they may again occur but the promise that those actions performed by Christ may be done in abundance by those who believe on him. So indeed the precedent is set and not only is precedent set but a promise given.

I am not being condescending here. But it is foolish to equate these two terms.

If you think I equate the terms you are mistaken and haven't been understanding what I have said at all. Which is why, in a spirit of charity, I have further explained my meaning. There is no where in the bible that indicates these actions such as we have discussed are limited to just the events mentioned in scripture. You may yet see a floating axehead. Though I doubt it. Yet we know that the dead have been raised in many instances in Scripture providing the precedent that the dead may certainly rise again. And in fact we are given a promise that this will indeed occur again.

 

[DHK]

If you think I equate the terms you are mistaken and haven't been understanding what I have said at all. Which is why, in a spirit of charity, I have further explained my meaning. There is no where in the bible that indicates these actions such as we have discussed are limited to just the events mentioned in scripture. You may yet see a floating axehead. Though I doubt it. Yet we know that the dead have been raised in many instances in Scripture providing the precedent that the dead may certainly rise again. And in fact we are given a promise that this will indeed occur again.

The miracles that Christ performed were not "precedent setting." They had purpose behind them. They were for the purpose of demonstrating that he was God; deity. The walking on water, the raising of Lazarus (after he had been four days in the grave), the multiplication of the bread and fish to feed the 5,000 (more like 20,000 if you include women and children), calmed the sea, turned water into wine, etc. These were never duplicated. They showed his power over nature, over life and death itself. The people could not argue with it. They are not precedent setting in any way. They demonstrated that he was God. Miracles have purpose.

The miracles of the apostles also had purpose. 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4 tell us that God gave the apostles power to perform signs and wonders, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit in order to authenticate them as apostles and their message as a genuine message from God. When the Apostolic age (the end of the first century) came to an end, these miracles ceased. They were not precedent setting. They had a purpose.

Throughout Scripture we see that God performed miracles with purpose.
There is no purpose, evidence, or proof for the assumption of Mary.
There is no purpose or reason for prayer to Mary or any other. In fact it goes contrary to the Ten Commandments and is called idolatry.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Helwys
See the part I put in bold:

And yet your Anglican Communion is diverse enough to hold and accept both views.

I haven't heard this before. The 39 Articles of Religion do not seem to give room for both views and I have yet to read of or talk to an Anglican who holds to a symbolic view of baptism or communion.

Walter, I agree with what you wrote here. The problem with the 'Anglican Communion' is that there are too many folks (and factions) who don't interpret the Articles and/or Prayer Book based on their plain meanings, and a fairly sized portion of 'Anglican-dom' seems to disregard the Articles altogether. Therefore, I don't see how any 'diversity'--which comprehends contradictory opinions about doctrines which are very important--can be a good thing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The miracles that Christ performed were not "precedent setting."

Absolutely they were as I have explained by what I mean for precedent setting.

They had purpose behind them

Of course they did!!!! That isn't the argument. Just because it had a purpose behind it doesn't mean it didn't set precedent. And it seems to me any future re-occurance of such instances would also have a purpose.

They were for the purpose of demonstrating that he was God; deity

. Yes they were signs proclaiming who he was. However, that doesn't necessitate that he wouldn't do such things again as God. And in fact has made a promise that for those who believe he will afford even greater acts than what he has done during his time here.

 

[DHK]

Absolutely they were as I have explained by what I mean for precedent setting.

Of course they did!!!! That isn't the argument. Just because it had a purpose behind it doesn't mean it didn't set precedent. And it seems to me any future re-occurance of such instances would also have a purpose.

. Yes they were signs proclaiming who he was. However, that doesn't necessitate that he wouldn't do such things again as God. And in fact has made a promise that for those who believe he will afford even greater acts than what he has done during his time here.

Who is Mary. She is a sinner like the rest of us. She is not God. She did not need to authenticate the Word of God and its message. She was found in the upper room with 119 other saved sinners praying to her Savior. This was after the resurrection; after the ascension of Christ.

What did Mary have to prove? That she was God? Hardly?
The so-called assumption has no purpose, no basis in scripture, no basis in history, no witness, no facts to back it up. It is simply a superstitious fable believed only by the RCC. There is no precedent for it.

You talk of precedents as if they are common food on a table.
God is a God of the miraculous. He created mankind to populate the earth.
To you that is precedent.
Therefore he could have populated the moon, Mars, all the planets and could have made a creature so heat resistant that it could have lived on the sun. He is a God of the miraculous. He can do those things. But he chose not to. He limits himself according to His nature and according to His Word. But you want to go farther than that. God can do anything you say. God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift can't he? He can do anything.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who is Mary. She is a sinner like the rest of us. She is not God. She did not need to authenticate the Word of God and its message. She was found in the upper room with 119 other saved sinners praying to her Savior. This was after the resurrection; after the ascension of Christ.

What did Mary have to prove? That she was God? Hardly?
The so-called assumption has no purpose, no basis in scripture, no basis in history, no witness, no facts to back it up. It is simply a superstitious fable believed only by the RCC. There is no precedent for it.

You talk of precedents as if they are common food on a table.
God is a God of the miraculous. He created mankind to populate the earth.
To you that is precedent.
Therefore he could have populated the moon, Mars, all the planets and could have made a creature so heat resistant that it could have lived on the sun. He is a God of the miraculous. He can do those things. But he chose not to. He limits himself according to His nature and according to His Word. But you want to go farther than that. God can do anything you say. God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift can't he? He can do anything.

What is telling is that NOTHING their Dogma proclaims about mary can be proven from the Bible, so that right there makes it untrue!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Who is Mary.

She is the Virgin God Chose through whom He would be incarnate. She is the chosen Mother for Jesus Christ (who is God). She is the one whom said "let it be done to me according to thy word" and allowed for her body to be used for that very incarnation. That is who she is.

She is a sinner like the rest of us

That is debatable. She is saved pre-emptively from sin certainly.

She is not God.

You are absolutely correct. "Compared to God she is less than an atom" to quote Louis DeMontfort.

She did not need to authenticate the Word of God and its message.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Explain what you mean.

She was found in the upper room with 119 other saved sinners praying to her Savior.

You are absolutely correct!

This was after the resurrection; after the ascension of Christ.

Again you are absolutely correct.

What did Mary have to prove?

Not a thing. In fact she lived her life in relative obscurity.

That she was God? Hardly?
The so-called assumption has no purpose

It would seem according to your thought the assumption of Enoch or Elijah really didn't have a purpose either. However, Catholics believed that Mary was assumed into heaven because God wanted to assume her into heaven due to his close relationship to her.

no basis in scripture,

Obviously Enoch is such a basis.

no basis in history

Again Enoch is a basis.

no witness,

There is much that happens with no witnesses

no facts to back it up

The fact that there is no grave or relics of her supports the idea.

It is simply a superstitious fable believed only by the RCC.

People thought the city of Troy was fictional until they found it in Turkey. The fact is you just don't know.

There is no precedent for it.

Again Enoch and Elijah show precedent for it.

You talk of precedents as if they are common food on a table.

I don't know what you think a precedent is. It seems you're confused on the definition. Which is why I posted the definition. And btw precedent is quite comon.

God is a God of the miraculous.

Amen

He created mankind to populate the earth. To you that is precedent.

Yes the principle being that the original man was able and commanded to procreate so than, in principle, his decendents would also have that ability to procreate and can apply that command by God to themselves since he set the precedent with Adam.

Therefore he could have populated the moon, Mars, all the planets and could have made a creature so heat resistant that it could have lived on the sun.

Yes he could have. But he didn't and thus there is no precedent established whereby I would expect a man originating and living on the sun or Mars or the Moon.

He is a God of the miraculous. He can do those things.

Amen

But he chose not to. He limits himself according to His nature and according to His Word.

Yes but he didn't limit himself when it came to Enoch or Elijah thus he set the precedent that he did not limit himself to assuming those he chose.

But you want to go farther than that.

Uh... No I don't and nor have I.

God can do anything you say.

Actually you said it.

God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift can't he?

That is called and intrinsic imposibility and that is not what I'm talking about. However just to tease you I will say I'm certain there were rocks Jesus (who is God) couldn't lift.

He can do anything.

See? You just said it.

 

[Yeshua1]

She is the Virgin God Chose through whom He would be incarnate. She is the chosen Mother for Jesus Christ (who is God). She is the one whom said "let it be done to me according to thy word" and allowed for her body to be used for that very incarnation. That is who she is.

That is debatable. She is saved pre-emptively from sin certainly. You are absolutely correct. "Compared to God she is less than an atom" to quote Louis DeMontfort. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Explain what you mean.
You are absolutely correct! Again you are absolutely correct.

Not a thing. In fact she lived her life in relative obscurity. It would seem according to your thought the assumption of Enoch or Elijah really didn't have a purpose either. However, Catholics believed that Mary was assumed into heaven because God wanted to assume her into heaven due to his close relationship to her.
Obviously Enoch is such a basis. Again Enoch is a basis. There is much that happens with no witnesses The fact that there is no grave or relics of her supports the idea. People thought the city of Troy was fictional until they found it in Turkey. The fact is you just don't know. Again Enoch and Elijah show precedent for it. I don't know what you think a precedent is. It seems you're confused on the definition. Which is why I posted the definition. And btw precedent is quite comon.

Amen Yes the principle being that the original man was able and commanded to procreate so than, in principle, his decendents would also have that ability to procreate and can apply that command by God to themselves since he set the precedent with Adam. Yes he could have. But he didn't and thus there is no precedent established whereby I would expect a man originating and living on the sun or Mars or the Moon. Amen Yes but he didn't limit himself when it came to Enoch or Elijah thus he set the precedent that he did not limit himself to assuming those he chose. Uh... No I don't and nor have I. Actually you said it. That is called and intrinsic imposibility and that is not what I'm talking about. However just to tease you I will say I'm certain there were rocks Jesus (who is God) couldn't lift.

See? You just said it.

Biblical facts of mary!

was born a sinner, imputed to her thru Adam
needed a Saviour, rejoiced in thre Messiah being born
had natural children thru Joseph after birth of Christ
died and was buried
her soul went to heaven, body waiting until Rapture
She cannot plead, nor intercede for us today
she was mother of God, but mother of jesus

Anything else would be false and misleading, not biblical!

 

[DHK]

She is the Virgin God Chose through whom He would be incarnate. She is the chosen Mother for Jesus Christ (who is God).

That does not make her the mother of God.
She was still a sinner just like every other sinner on this earth.
God chose her for a special work. He chose Paul and Peter for other special works. Mary was no different.

She is the one whom said "let it be done to me according to thy word" and allowed for her body to be used for that very incarnation. That is who she is.

And Paul submitted to the Lord in like manner. So did many other godly Christians. Isaiah said: "Here am I Lord, send me." No different. She made herself available to do what God wanted her to do like thousands of others have done.

That is debatable. She is saved pre-emptively from sin certainly.

All people are saved the same way. They put their faith and trust in Christ. Peter did. Andrew did. Andrew said: "Come and see, we have found the Messiah." From that point Peter and Andrew started believing and following Christ. They believed. There was a point in Mary's life also where she believed and was therefore justified by her faith.

You are absolutely correct. "Compared to God she is less than an atom" to quote Louis DeMontfort.

Compared to God her works were like filthy rags, nothing she did was good, she was on the road to hell, until she believed and was justified by faith. That is what it is like for all of mankind.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Explain what you mean.

During the lifetime of Mary miracles were for two purposes:
1. Christ performed miracles to demonstrated that he was God.
--Mary is not God, and didn't need to demonstrate such.
2. Power to perform signs and wonders were given to the Apostles in order to authenticate them as the Apostles of God, and their message as from God. Mary was not an Apostle, but less than one. She did not need miracles.

Not a thing. In fact she lived her life in relative obscurity.

Which demonstrates her insignificance in the early church.
[quote[ It would seem according to your thought the assumption of Enoch or Elijah really didn't have a purpose either.[/quote]
If you read and study the Bible, it will tell you why they were assumed into heaven. The Bible is silent about Mary's death and all of my relatives' and ancestors death, or shall I assume that they were all "assumed" into heaven as well? Ridiculous!
Mary was not assumed into heaven because the resurrection has not taken place yet. In that day her body will be raised along with all the rest of the dead in Christ. That is the promise of God.

However, Catholics believed that Mary was assumed into heaven because God wanted to assume her into heaven due to his close relationship to her.

Catholics are wrong. They don't believe the Bible, but rather myth.

Obviously Enoch is such a basis. Again Enoch is a basis. There is much that happens with no witnesses The fact that there is no grave or relics of her supports the idea. People thought the city of Troy was fictional until they found it in Turkey. The fact is you just don't know.

The Bible states that "we wait for the redemption of our bodies." Paul said that. He included himself. He included Mary. The resurrection has not yet taken place.

Again Enoch and Elijah show precedent for it. I don't know what you think a precedent is. It seems you're confused on the definition. Which is why I posted the definition. And btw precedent is quite comon.

And you are quite confused and very good at believing in myths. Perhaps you should study Mormonism. There are many good stories they have in their religion. Would you believe them as well?

Yes the principle being that the original man was able and commanded to procreate so than, in principle, his decendents would also have that ability to procreate and can apply that command by God to themselves since he set the precedent with Adam. Yes he could have. But he didn't and thus there is no precedent established whereby I would expect a man originating and living on the sun or Mars or the Moon.

The procreation of the earth is the precedent following along your own logic; thus at this point you become illogical.

Yes but he didn't limit himself when it came to Enoch or Elijah thus he set the precedent that he did not limit himself to assuming those he chose.

You assume facts not in existence, and therefore not facts. You believe in a myth.

 

[Yeshua1]

That does not make her the mother of God.
She was still a sinner just like every other sinner on this earth.
God chose her for a special work. He chose Paul and Peter for other special works. Mary was no different.

And Paul submitted to the Lord in like manner. So did many other godly Christians. Isaiah said: "Here am I Lord, send me." No different. She made herself available to do what God wanted her to do like thousands of others have done.

All people are saved the same way. They put their faith and trust in Christ. Peter did. Andrew did. Andrew said: "Come and see, we have found the Messiah." From that point Peter and Andrew started believing and following Christ. They believed. There was a point in Mary's life also where she believed and was therefore justified by her faith.

Compared to God her works were like filthy rags, nothing she did was good, she was on the road to hell, until she believed and was justified by faith. That is what it is like for all of mankind.

During the lifetime of Mary miracles were for two purposes:
1. Christ performed miracles to demonstrated that he was God.
--Mary is not God, and didn't need to demonstrate such.
2. Power to perform signs and wonders were given to the Apostles in order to authenticate them as the Apostles of God, and their message as from God. Mary was not an Apostle, but less than one. She did not need miracles.

Which demonstrates her insignificance in the early church.
[quote[ It would seem according to your thought the assumption of Enoch or Elijah really didn't have a purpose either.

If you read and study the Bible, it will tell you why they were assumed into heaven. The Bible is silent about Mary's death and all of my relatives' and ancestors death, or shall I assume that they were all "assumed" into heaven as well? Ridiculous!
Mary was not assumed into heaven because the resurrection has not taken place yet. In that day her body will be raised along with all the rest of the dead in Christ. That is the promise of God.

Catholics are wrong. They don't believe the Bible, but rather myth.

The Bible states that "we wait for the redemption of our bodies." Paul said that. He included himself. He included Mary. The resurrection has not yet taken place.

And you are quite confused and very good at believing in myths. Perhaps you should study Mormonism. There are many good stories they have in their religion. Would you believe them as well?

The procreation of the earth is the precedent following along your own logic; thus at this point you become illogical.

You assume facts not in existence, and therefore not facts. You believe in a myth.[/QUOTE]

mary mother of/to jesus, NOT God the Trinity, did not procreate the tntire truine Godhead, JUST the physical body of God the Son for His Incarnation!

And the RCC took isis and other pagan female deities and "morphed" them into becoming Mary'mother of God"