Mary ascended bodily?

[Carson Weber]

Hi 3AngelsMom,

Thank you for pointing out the greatest truth about Mary!

When Jesus proclaimed, "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother," Mary was the first to shout, "Amen! Preach it my son!"

John Paul II wrote an encyclical named Redemptoris Mater (In English, Mother of the Redeemer) in '87. It's a masterpiece, and I've had to read it for several classes. You can read it here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

I encourage you to read paragraphs 12 through 19. The entire document is an exposition of Scripture, and I feel that if you commit yourself to it, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Here is a short taste of what JPII has to say about Mary's faith:
___
The word of the living God, announced to Mary by the angel, referred to her: "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Lk. 1:31). By accepting this announcement, Mary was to become the "Mother of the Lord," and the divine mystery of the Incarnation was to be accomplished in her: "The Father of mercies willed that the consent of the predestined Mother should precede the Incarnation."(33) And Mary gives this consent, after she has heard everything the messenger has to say. She says: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" (Lk. 1:38). This fiat of Mary-"let it be to me"-was decisive, on the human level, for the accomplishment of the divine mystery. There is a complete harmony with the words of the Son, who, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, says to the Father as he comes into the world: "Sacrifices and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me.... Lo, I have come to do your will, O God" (Heb. 10:5-7). The mystery of the Incarnation was accomplished when Mary uttered her fiat: "Let it be to me according to your word," which made possible, as far as it depended upon her in the divine plan, the granting of her Son's desire.

Mary uttered this fiat in faith. In faith she entrusted herself to God without reserve and "devoted herself totally as the handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son."(34) And as the Fathers of the Church teach-she conceived this Son in her mind before she conceived him in her womb: precisely in faith!(35) Rightly therefore does Elizabeth praise Mary: "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." These words have already been fulfilled: Mary of Nazareth presents herself at the threshold of Elizabeth and Zechariah's house as the Mother of the Son of God. This is Elizabeth's joyful discovery: "The mother of my Lord comes to me"!
___

God bless,

Carson

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Latreia,

Something you wrote, "To an RC eyes of faith" is often a euphemism for being credulous or gullible.", reminded me of a statement Cardinal Newman once made about the way some Protestants perceived the faith of Catholics.

He wrote "I think I may assume that this virtue [of faith], which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves ... [Protestants] are as children tossed to and from and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations").

Whatever sort of boorish terminology you make use of: Credulous, gullible, slavish, foolish... My faith is that of a child's, and it will remain so by the grace of God.

It is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging.

In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment, it rests with the reader, who submits the text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.

The "unhappy divisions" of Protestantism, not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a proverb. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 26, 2003, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[thessalonian]

Bobryan said:

"worshipping at her altars"

Bob, could you please show me where some of these altars are, as I know of no altar anywhere in the world that is an altar to Mary. If you find one let me know.

 

[BobRyan]

Grant
I've been trying to say forever that you cannot seperate Marian dogma and have them stand on their own. It's an intricate network of beliefs that come together to form one unity. Of course the Queen of Heaven belief doesn't make sense with the Assumption, and the Assumption without the Immaculate Conception.

But saying you can "prove" any of the above false is not possible. If you could, it would have been done already. And things that are PROVEN are not argued, and it's clear that it's still being argued here.

#1. IF Marian dogma forms a whole UNIT then by your own admition - IF we show FROM scripture that ALL mankind is lost and sinful - and that Mary is human - we CAN show that the Catholic UNIT which argues for Mary's bodily assumption into heaven is void and null.

#2. IF the Catholic argument were based on TWO premises (A) that She was sinnless so she HAD to have been assumed bodily into heaven and (B) that the plentitude of First century EYE witness accounts of her bodily ascension argue in favor of it... THEN our disproving (A) would only remove ONE leg of their argument. But in fact (B) does not exist and (A) is testable by scripture alone. Presto!

#3. ALL Catholic errors are considered to be "proven" as errors by the Catholic reformers and catholic protestors that formed the new churches. Even today in Evangelism that is done currently it is via Bible study - SHOWING that the Catholic church is in error on these very points that Catholics are becoming ex-Catholics.

So while your point is true - that the debate STILL goes on - just as the Debate as to whether Jesus was really the promised Messiah of the OT STILL goes on with Jews - THAT fact alone does not mean that the Bible does NOT show Jesus to BE the Messiah Nor does it mean that the Bible does NOT show "ALL mankind - even Mary" to be sinners and in need of "God My Savior" to Save them.

In Christ,

Bob

God bless,

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
[QB]Latreia,

The oneness pentecostals (Protestants) would argue with you......

**Just for the record, Oneness Pentecostals are not Protestants!

We were 'never' of the belief of the church of Rome!

MEE <-----Apostolic Pentecostal....the root of Christianity. "Nuff said"...don't want to argue, just clearing up this statement.

 

[BobRyan]

Carson W

I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a blanket statement. Jesus, before he died and was resurrected, conversed with two "dead" people at the Mount of Transfiguration: Moses and Elijah.

As a Christian, when I ask Moses and Elijah to pray for me, I'm simply having a conversation with them, like Jesus did. In effect, I'm imitating my Lord.

Now who would have thought?? Jesus prayed to the dead!

I would not be so bold as to make such a unsupportable statement.

#1. Elijah did not die - Read 2Kings 2 - Elijah was "Taken to Heaven" by God - bodily in the fiery chariot and whirlwind of heaven.

#2. Moses - we actually have MORE Bible evidence for the bodily assumption of Moses than we ever did for Mary. Jude quotes authorotatively from the book "The Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7-11.

#3. The Catholic church does NOT allow us to "pray to the living". So in fact IF we discover the facts of #1 and #2 above - then when Christ IS standing there speaking to these Living beings - TRANSLATED directly to heaven in one case and ASSUMED bodily into heaven in the other case - He is not YET performing the prayers to the dead that are reserved for those who have died and are "The Dead in Christ" of 1Thess 4.

#4. The Prayers to the Dead - that you find in Catholicism do much more than say "I'm just asking that you pray for me". They assume the all-knowing God power of the dead saint. They assume that the dead saint can hear all prayers of all Christians at all times. They argue with the dead saint saying "I will RECRUIT others to devotion to YOU". And in the case of Mariolotry they ascribe "ALL POWER" to the dead person.

WE do not see "any" of that with Christ as He speaks to Elijah and Moses.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But lets suppose for a moment that we go along with Carson's argument above. That the Transfiguration scene of Matt 17 is truly conversing with the dead saints AS a Catholic would pray to the dead today.

The BIG deal is that Moses and Elijah actually APPEAR and talk back. That is (IF we assume Carson's argument that they are dead) - this is not only calling out to the dead, this is CONJURING the dead.

Basically the argument that Carson is using opens the door to "Christian seance with the dead" where the dead are to APPEAR and talk to you.

However (as we see in the post above) Christ is NOT conjuring the dead because ELIJAH never died AND we have MORE evidence IN SCRIPTURE for Moses being ASSUMED into heaven than we have for MARY.

The door on "conjuring the dead" therefore - remains slammed - shut.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Latreia,

"Oneness pentecostals are irrelevant to the issue. You are trying to argue that acceptance of the trinity is contingent on accepting the authoirty of councils. "

Don't put words in to my mouth. No, my point is that just because a council or a Pope has not declared something does not mean that it was not true prior to the declaration. That is all. From that standpoint your arguements are inconsistent and the oneness penties are pertinent to the discussion. And you still haven't answered the inconsistency of the lack of explicit evidence for Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. They just aren't in the Bible. Most definitely not explicitly, except in the mind of fundamentalists Christians who are blinded to the truth.

"Scripture is compleely silent on the end of mary. No one can reasonable deny that."

Not completely. We see in Rev 12 a woman clothed with the sun and the moon and the stars at her feet. Interestingly enough if you look in Rev 11, there is that reference to the AOC. Oh, I know, na na boo boo, that is the Church and only the Church or Israel and only Israel it is talking about. Sorry, don't buy it. Now it is not explicitly stated what happened to her but neither is your end for her explicitly stated otherwise. And contrary to what you say, the historical record is not nearly as incomplete as you might think. First of those "heretical" writings were declared as such as you say. However this does not make everthing written in them heretical. Origen was declared a heretic for his Universalist tendancies and yet his writings are still looked upon as a witness for other doctrines. The same is true of Tertullian who became a Montanist later in life.

But there is another problem with your theory that these heretical unhistorical documents are the basis for this belief. It is called the Feast of the Assumption and it seems it has been celebrated since the 7th century in both the eastern and western Churches. Now if Pope Gelasius, pope in the late 5th century, and Pope Hommisdas, Pope in the early 6th century intedend in their declaration of these documents being heredical to also declare the assumption heretical, then why such widespread acception of the celebration of these feast day without a wimper in the Church? It just doesn't follow. It is also very unlikely that these documents were very well distrubuted in the Christian world since heretical documents were usually destoryed. So you see, your theory does not hold water.

"So prioving that some protestants agree that Peter had a primacy doesn't help you if they don't think that he had a primacy in the way you do."

Man are you missing my points. You actually think I was trying to make that arguement when it was you that was trying to elicit support of Catholics scholars for one of your points of view. I was just showing you how ridiculous you sounded and now it appears you agree with me. Take a bow.



"To an RC eyes of faith" is often a euphemism for being credulous or gullible. "

Do you think insults and belittling server your side any better than my supposed tactics. I am beginning to find you to be a rather boorish arrogant sort.

Blessings though

 

[thessalonian]

MEE

You said:
"**Just for the record, Oneness Pentecostals are not Protestants!"

You protest Catholicism don't you. Yep, your Protestant. Check the dictionary.

 

[thessalonian]

Bobryan said:

"worshipping at her altars"

Bob, could you post a picture of one of these altars to Mary that we Catholics have. In 40 years as a Catholic I have never seen one so perhaps you could help me out. Otherwise I will just chalk it up to overexuberent Catholic bashing by another anti-catholic.

Blessings bob.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
MEE

You said:
"**Just for the record, Oneness Pentecostals are not Protestants!"

You protest Catholicism don't you. Yep, your Protestant. Check the dictionary.

**I don't agree with them!

....but was never part of them! So, therefore we never broke away from them.

MEE<-----Non-Trinitarian!

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

You keep saying that the Catholic Church forbids "praying to the living." I've just never even seen that issue tackled, though maybe I've missed it. Could you please point me to an official stance from the Church on this? I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

You either need to take the stance that Moses was assumed into heaven, or stop using it in your arguments. If you believe it, then state it. You can't straddle the fence on the issue and yet use it in your defense at the same time. That's not proper scholarship.

If you're not sure that he was assumed into heaven, then don't use that as some sort of theological weapon.

God bless,

Grant

 

[FearNot]

Carson,
Jesus taught in the public at the temple. When one is doing the work of God, that is ministry work. So yes, Jesus did have a public ministry before turning water to wine.

You are representing that Mary was assumed up to heaven. That is based on the doctrine of your church. Any VALID doctrine can be supported by Scripture. To which you have none. This is obviously something the church came up with to support what they wanted and inturn raising Mary to a high level to which she does not belong. Was she a greta woman and believer? Yes. Should anyone pray to her? No.

You also over looked on the subject of Moses and Elijah, that Jesus is God. While He could have a active conversation with anyone outside of time, including both satan and God the Father and Holy Ghost, we are not able to do so, because we are not God. We can pray to God yes, but we will not be able to hear people like Elijah and Moses while Christ could. Secondly, we are instructed in Scripture to NOT pray to the dead, or pray to ANYONE other than God. If you like I can provide you with the Scripture, but do not have my Bible with me right now.

 

[Netcurtains3]

The clue is when GOD says to Abraham "your ONLY child". Logically God can only be talking to the Sarah part of Abraham unless God is telling dads to abandon some kids or that divorced dads cannot be fathers.

Net.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi 3AngelsMom,

Thank you for pointing out the greatest truth about Mary!

When Jesus proclaimed, "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother," Mary was the first to shout, "Amen! Preach it my son!"
Carson

Firstly, it doesn't really matter to me what the Pope says about a particular doctrine. Not that he is a bad guy or anything, undoubtably he is a very devoted and loving man. BUT, I would rather go with JUST the Bible. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

I must point out that in reference to the above statement, I'm going to assume that you were just being funny, because the thing is, Mary, was NOT in the room when He said that. She was still 'without'.

Let's look at it again.

Mat 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

So, if you were kidding, and really even if you aren't, it is quite obvious that Mary was not there to say "Amen, preach it Son!" It is a nice thought though.

I went and did a 'mini' in depth study on the topic of Mary in respect to the claims that the Catholic Church have made about her, and here is what I came up with.

The claim that Mary is a 'Co-Redemptrix' with Jesus:
Job 19:25. For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: (this is, in no doubt, talking about the coming Messiah).
Psalm 19:14. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer. (This passage also, pre-dates the first advent of Christ, making it very clear that David is speaking to the promised Messiah).
Psalm 78:35. And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer. (Again, from Psalms as well, David referring to God as the redeemer).
Isaiah 47:4. As for our redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah is the book of the Messiah. It is where the majority of Messianic prophecies are. Here He is called by 3 names, The Lord of Hosts, The Holy One of Israel, and Our Redeemer).
Isaiah 49:26. And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. (Here God is show as the Mighty One, again being called 'One'. The Savior and Redeemer).
Isaiah 63:16. Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. (HIS Name is from everlasting. God has ALWAYS been, and in His role as our Father, He has always been the Redeemer).
The word Redeemer does not occur anywhere in the New Testament.

The claim that Mary is 'co-advocate' with Jesus:

There is actually only ONE verse in the WHOLE Bible that says the word 'advocate':
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: (And here it says that JESUS is the Advocate).

The claim that Mary is a 'mediatrix' with Jesus:
Again, this is a word, not often used, but here are the occurances:
Galatians 3: 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
1 Timothy 2:5. For there is one God, and {b]one mediator[/b] between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (I can't help but point out the blatant disregard for this text by this doctrine. It says ONE. Just ONE).
Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24 all say just about the same thing, that Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

The claim that Mary was sinless like Jesus:

The following are the only occurances of the words 'without sin' in the whole Bible. The word 'sinless' does not occur in Scripture.
John 8:7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (Ok, if Mary was there, she would not have taken up stones, but the point is made that there are NONE without sin).
Hebrews 4:15. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (I put in v.16 as well to point out that we are shown here that we can come BOLDLY to the throne of grace, which would remove the need for an advocate to Jesus. The only advocate needed is Christ to get us connected to God).
Hebrews 9: 28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (This is the last place that the term 'sinless' was applied to ANYONE in the Bible. We see that Christ was offered to bear the sins of many, He will return WITHOUT that sin, because when He returns His work as redeemer will be complete and there will be no more sin).

The claim that Mary was 'assumed' into heaven:

I saw you post that Mary did not ascend, but that she was assumed. Do you mean her WHOLE body was taken to heaven? I did not find anywhere in the Bible where it says that she died, but only the passage in Luke where Jesus tells John to behold his mother, and to Mary to behold her son. Jesus asked him to take care of her and it says that she stayed with him from that day forward.
Considering that she was probably pretty old by the time John finished all of his writings, wouldn't it make sense that she could have very well died at some time AFTER the writings were complete, and therefore it didn't get recorded? Does that give us liberty to 'assume' someone was taken to heaven? Just because it doesn't say that they died? I think that if God was planning (and He plans everything) to take Mary to heaven and give her exalted status, He would have made a point to inspire someone to write it all down.

Your argument that Mary is the 2nd Eve.

Where does it say in the Bible that there should be a 2nd Eve???? You said the evidence was that Jesus called her 'woman'. I know that Christ is the 2nd Adam because Adam was the first created and Jesus the first begotten, but I see no evidence of a 2nd Eve.
The idea that Mary and Jesus are in heaven in a 'married' status, kind of sickens me, so I am going to walk softly here, and throw a few big sticks:

Matthew 15: 28. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. (speaking to the woman from Cannan with the demon possessed child).
Matthew 26: 10. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. (Mary Magdalene is the 'woman' here).
John 20:15. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. (Again Mary Magdalene).

If the evidence of this doctrine is Jesus calling someone 'woman' then it looks to me that Jesus isn't married to Mary, He has a whole harem!

Also, Jesus does not 'appreciate' the compliment made by someone in regards to His mother:
Luk 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, 'Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked'.
Luk 11:28 But he said, 'Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it'.

There is overwhelming evidence that is contrary to this doctrine, and regardless of the 'traditions' passed down, there is ample Biblical support that contradicts these ideas.

This is the Truth from the Word of God, I leave it to you.

God Bless.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
The clue is when GOD says to Abraham "your ONLY child". Logically God can only be talking to the Sarah part of Abraham unless God is telling dads to abandon some kids or that divorced dads cannot be fathers.

Net.

God did not consider Ishmael Abrahams son for several reasons.
He was born from an adulterous relationship. (With or without Sarah's permission, it was still adultery)
He was born out of wedlock (which made him a bastard)
He was the product of Abraham taking matters into his own hands. (trying to fulfill the promise himself).
AND last but certainly not least, Ishmael is the ULTIMATE reminder (still to this day) that Abraham lacked faith.

God promised Abraham that He would perform a miracle on him and his wife in their old age and that the TWO of them would have a child, through whom ALL the nations of the world would be blessed (speaking of the coming of the Messiah through their bloodline).

Ishmael, was NOT of the promise that Abraham received from God. He was the product of SIN.

As far as God wanting men to abandon children, if I recall correctly God told Abraham to cast Hagar and Ishmael OUT of their house. And Abraham did it.

God Bless.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
have ever read the Old Testament and considered how much God's truth is not contingent on his messenger's holiness.

God bless,

Carson

Yeah!

Just look at Peter!

 

[thessalonian]

AngelMum:

"I must point out that in reference to the above statement, I'm going to assume that you were just being funny, because the thing is, Mary, was NOT in the room when He said that. She was still 'without'."

What difference does it make whether she was in the room when he said it or not. Doesn't "let it be done unto me according to your word" mean that she did the will of the father. I guess the statement doesn't apply to you either since you weren't in the room.




"So, if you were kidding, and really even if you aren't, it is quite obvious that Mary was not there to say "Amen, preach it Son!" It is a nice thought though."

What's your point. I don't see it.

I The claim that Mary is a 'Co-Redemptrix' with Jesus:
The claim that Mary is 'co-advocate' with Jesus:

Hmmmm. The point you miss in it all is that Mary's co-redemption, co-advocacy, depends completely on and is through the son. That is the part you will never be honest about admitting. And you will never be honest and say that your prayers are in a manner of speaking being and advocate and participating in the redemption of another soul. It is not in any way apart from Christ or on her own that she is any of these things. Paul says we are co-laborers with Christ. Is this blasphemy to you also?

"There is actually only ONE verse in the WHOLE Bible that says the word 'advocate':
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: (And here it says that JESUS is the Advocate)."

Jesus is the Advocate but does that deny our advocacy? Jesus is the foundation of the Church. 1 Cor 3:11. Does that mean that apostles and prophets are not the foundation of the Church? Think hard before you answer that one. Jesus is the light of the world, so are Christians the light of the world? ONce again think hard.

"The claim that Mary is a 'mediatrix' with Jesus:
Again, this is a word, not often used, but here are the occurances:
Galatians 3: 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
1 Timothy 2:5. For there is one God, and {b]one mediator[/b] between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (I can't help but point out the blatant disregard for this text by this doctrine. It says ONE. Just ONE)."

When reading the Bible it is always good to read the verses before and after the verse in questoin. In particular 1 Tim 2:1-4 implies heavily that because Jesus is the one mediator, we can interceed for others through him.

Timothy 2:1-4
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In a sense we can mediate with him by praying for others to him. Or asking others prayers. That is what we do when we pray to Mary asking for her prayers "PRAY FOR US SINNERS" we say. Get it. That is what she does for us. She obtains the graces of her son for us.

Co in all of these cases does not mean equal with or another or anything like that. It means with and through.

The claim that Mary was sinless like Jesus:

"The following are the only occurances of the words 'without sin' in the whole Bible. The word 'sinless' does not occur in Scripture."

Full of grace means without sin because if we are full of grace, then there is no room for sin. Only three people are said to be full of grace in scripture. Stephen at his martyrdom (in some translations, even some protestant), Mary, and Jesus.

"John 8:7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (Ok, if Mary was there, she would not have taken up stones, but the point is made that there are NONE without sin)."

Gee, the Mary wasn't in the room theory was good up above why isn't it here? Guess you use the arguement that works rather than worry about being consistent.

All I have time for right now. Perhaps more later.

 

[Bible-belted]

thessalonian,

"Don't put words in to my mouth."

I am not. You argued that we baptists accpeted the Trinity, apparantly on the basis of its conciliar pronouncement, implying thast we are inconsistent in not acepting the Assumption ont he sa,me basis. I pointed out that we don't accept the Trinity on the basis you asserted so there was no inconsistency. The fact is your original argument ONLY works if the premise is that he authority of the council is determinative. You are now backing off that.

Yes Scripture is completely silent on the end of Mary. Nothing says that she was assumed or implies it. Epiphianus thought so. Or do you cherry pick your ECFs? Revelation does not support you unless you first assume the Assumption.

"But there is another problem with your theory that these heretical unhistorical documents are the basis for this belief."

It is not my theory. It is a fact acepoted by RC scholars like Ludwig Ott. The feast fo the Assumption actually post-dates the Transitus literature. The transitus dates from the 5th century. And the two popes who condemned the literateure are Gelasius who issued his cedree in 494-496, and Normisdas in the 6th century. So citing the Feast of the Assumption inthe seventh is rather useless. That is the fact. Your argument that the Assumption festivities ought not to be in light of those pronouncements, is one I agree with. It ought not to have happened. But it did. So say RC scholars. Argue with them if you like. The reason it got accepted is becuase the Transitus was later misidnetified as being the work of Melito of Sardis, who was orthodox (that's why it is called pseudo-Melito). That gave the Assumption credibiliy it woud have lacked had the Transitus been properly idetified as one fo the works earlier declared heretical. In other words, it got in as an acepted tradition by mistake. It happens.

And I did not miss your points at all. You simply failt to see the error you make. You attempted to say that citing RC scholars was useless since you can find Baptist scholars that say that Peter had a primacy in the early church. But there is a difference. You would be citig baptists in support of a conclusion that the baptists DO NOT themselves make (a primacy of jurisdiction and hence a papcy) whereas I cite them in support of a conclusion that they DO reach, that the Assumption's foundations are based on apocryphal literature declared heretical. So you see I am not opposed to you citing Baptists. I don't think it is silly at all. That's why I said I don't mind of you cite them in spport of a Petrine primacy. You just have to point out also that they don't support primacy in a pro-papal sense.

[ January 27, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Latreia ]