Mother Mary??

[Yelsew2]

When Jesus was transfigured, was anyone else transfigured too?

Don't bother, the record says that Jesus alone was transfigured. It doesn't say that he had an out of body experience, but rather that His whole essence was transfigured, that he because what man is not!

 

[Melanie]

This is a good qestion aboutthe Assumption of Mary. For those interested ion the catholic stand on this, here is an address
www://newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

[BobRyan]

The passage in Pope Pius' letter that caught the attention of theologians was short but significant:

... God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith
our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only lo the Teaching Authority of the Church.
-Humani Generis-no. 21

Clearly, Pius was preparing to dogmatically define the Assumption of Mary. That is, he was going "to elucidate and explain" that the Assumption of Mary was "contained in the deposit of faith," even though admittedly "only obscurely and implicitly." He would do so despite a lack of clear support either from Scripture or from early witnesses to
Tradition.

Three months later, on November 1,1950, Pope Pius took his seat before an overflow crowd in Saint Peter's Square. In front of him lay the final draft of a document titled Munificentissimus Deus, that is, Most Bountiful God. It traced the history of widespread Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary. The document concluded with a declaration staying:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it lo be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
-Munificentissimus Deus-no.44

 

[Yelsew2]

Briony-Gloriana,
The "assumption of Mary is only a good question only to those who are willing to believe anything, but not to those who are like the Bereaens, You see, if the Assumption of Mary were valid, every one of the Apostles would have written about it. You see, none of their writings predated the supposed event! And since Mary was an important part of "the community", it would have been noteworthy to write about such an event.

Such an event would have merited at least one (1) eye-witness report, and we have none! All we have is speculation and conjecture, nothing of historical value. The picture of the "Sepulcre of the Virgin" shown on that website cannot be confirmed as anything but a sepulcre. There is no evidence that it was ever "used" or occupied. No documentation relating to it what ever, just "oral tradition" of what it is.

What use would God have of that which comes from the earth? From dust to dust! That's what happens to human flesh, it returns to the dust from whence it was taken.

Do I believe that Mary is in Heaven? ABSOLUTELY! But I do not believe her body of flesh is, for no flesh can enter heaven. Heaven is a spiritual realm, earth is a natural realm, and that is one of the reasons they are separate one from the other.

 

[BobRyan]

The "story" about the assumption of Mary - was invented centuries after her death and goes something like this...

The Transitus Mariæ
The Account of St. John the Theologian
of the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God
AS THE ALL-HOLY glorious Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, as was her wont, was going to the holy tomb of our Lord to burn incense, and bending her holy knees, she was importunate that Christ our God who had been born of her should return to her.
And I John say to her: Jesus Christ our Lord and our God is coming, and thou seest Him, as He promised to thee. And the holy mother of God answered and said to me: The Jews have sworn that after I have died they will burn my body. And I answered and said to her: Thy holy and precious body will by no means see corruption.
….
And I answered and said: Yes, I heard. And the Holy Spirit said to me: This voice which thou didst hear denotes that the appearance of thy brethren the apostles is at hand, and of the holy powers that they are coming hither to-day. And at this I John prayed.
And the Holy Spirit said to the apostles: Let all of you together, having come by the clouds from the ends of the world, be assembled to holy Bethlehem by a whirlwind, on account of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Peter from Rome, Paul from Tiberia, Thomas from Hither India, James from Jerusalem. Andrew, Peter's brother, and Philip, Luke, and Simon the Cananaean, and Thaddaeus who had fallen asleep, were raised by the Holy Spirit out of their tombs; to whom the Holy Spirit said: Do not think that it is now the resurrection; but on this account you have risen out of your tombs, that you may go to give greeting to the honour and wonder-working of the mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, because the day of her departure is at hand, of her going up into the heavens.
And Mark likewise coming round, was present from Alexandria; he also with the rest, as has been said before, from each country. And Peter being lifted up by a cloud, stood between heaven and earth, the Holy Spirit keeping him steady. And at the same time, the rest of the apostles also, having been snatched up in clouds, were found along with Peter. And thus by the Holy Spirit, as has been said, they all came together.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[frozencell]

For those who say that there is no proof of the perpetual virginity of Mary and her assumption, I provide the following. Especially note the part about the whole "where's her grave" thing.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption


The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings. In this tract we’ll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that Fundamentalist writers frequently object to—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.


The Immaculate Conception


It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."


Fundamentalists’ Objections


Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.


The Assumption


The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.


No Remains


There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.


Complement to the Immaculate Conception


Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].


Mary’s Cooperation


Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.

All Christians believe that that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.


The Bible Only?


Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

Mary: Ever Virgin


Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.


The Protoevangelium of James


"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).


Origen


"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).


Hilary of Poitiers


"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).


Athanasius


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).


Jerome


"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).


Didymus the Blind


"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).


Ambrose of Milan


"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).


Pope Siricius I


"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).


Augustine


"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).


Leporius


"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).


Cyril of Alexandria


"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).


Pope Leo I


"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).


Council of Constantinople II


"If anyone will not confess that the Word of God ... came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her, let him be anathema" (Anathemas Against the "Three Chapters" 2 [A.D. 553]).

And here's some Mother of God stuff, too. Please don't have the audacity to say all of these people were liars and had no idea what they were talking about.

Mary: Mother of God


Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the church he founded has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.


Irenaeus


"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).


Hippolytus


"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).


Gregory the Wonderworker


"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).


Peter of Alexandria


"They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).


Methodius


"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).


Ephraim the Syrian


"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).


Athanasius


"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).


Ambrose of Milan


"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).


Gregory of Nazianz


"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).


Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation. Mother of man because it was a man who was in the womb of Mary and who came forth from there, and the Mother of God because God was in the man who was born" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).


Cyril of Alexandria


"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).


John Cassian


"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).


Council of Ephesus


"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).


Vincent of Lerins


"Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ" (The Notebooks 12[35] [A.D. 434]).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven,

The doctrine of the Assumption is an assumption that assumes a whole lot of assumptions about an assumption that is not in the Bible but is only assumed to be in the Bible. Since we do not rest our case on assumptions we do not believe in the Assumption.

Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.

Such arrogance! The Assumption is assumed. Remeber. We want facts from the Word of God; not assumed assumptions. Thus the position of the Catholic Church is false because it is based entirely on assumptions that are only assumed, and they don't even know where she supposedly was assumed. But the Bible factually tells us that all have sinned all die as a result of sin, assumptions notwithstanding.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

Then who was given the Great Commission in the first four centuries!! The Catholic Church did have an origin, but it wasn't with Peter. Try Constantine. His commission wasn't the Great one, but rather a crusade. It wasn't commissioned by the Holy Spirit, but rather by the devil. So much for the Catholic Church.
DHK

 

[frozencell]

DHK,

I have tried to provide you, and others, with historical factual documents. It is completely impossible to debate anything, no matter the subject, with only one side's sources. I do not use sola scriptura because I don't believe in sola scriptura. I didn't even believe in that as a Protestant. To me, this seems an arrogant stance to take. If you want my side then you must allow for my sources. When I provide sources all I get is told that I am wrong and that "they" are right, without any real back-up. It is getting very tiring to be challenged and then basically ignored because you don't like my sources. Thsi is a very close-minded board that doesn't want any true debate or opinion, but only to pat each other on the back for being a Baptist.

Your clever word games have gotten you nowhere on your post. You made no attempt to refute anything in the articles which I provided except to nay-say anything that you didn't agree with. Simply saying that I'm wrong is not enough. No attempt to discuss the general acceptance of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary was attempted by you, especially in the light of what those who lived during her time taught to be true. These two things coorelate perfectly, and instead of being able to face it like a man and refute me, you have decided to simply see how cute you can make a sentence by repeating the word "assumption" 1,800 times.

Simply, I do not believe in Sola Scriptura. I do not believe Protestants, of any denomination, have the whole Truth. I do not believe that Baptists are correct in everything they teach. I do not agree with you on the sources to use, even the subtle attempt made to get me to agree with the Protestant version of the Bible. I cannot agrue a point if I am ridiculed for using more or different sources than is "approved" by you personally, as they benefit you greatly. I find it redundant and a waste of time to try and make any point as i know I will only face unsubstantiated contradiction.

 

[frozencell]

The point I am trying to make is this:

Some of the vast contributors on this particular board simply just love to hate Catholics. You know who you are. There is no debating with you because you are not on here to learn and discuss, but just to march around in your little internet lynch mob. I am sorry for this, and am praying for your intentions and your souls.

 

[Yelsew2]

Frozencell,

You are most deliberatly WRONG! There is no one here that "simply just love to hate Catholics".

I don't hate even one Catholic. But I certainly do not condone their FALSE DOCTRINES, and will continue to argue against those false doctrines. So get over your pity party and accept the truth about those who refute or argue against False Catholic Doctrines. We are most happy to help you rethink those doctrines and to help you understand why they are false.

 

[Gina B]

Frozen Cell, I've said it before but I'll repeat it now.
I try not to bother with debating other religions very often because it's pointless when we don't believe the same thing in what constitues scripture/infallible writings.

The starting point in any meaningful discussion is going to have to be to either agree to only use the protestant bible as that is something both sides agree is accurate.

You've made it obvious that you're not willing to do that. In that case, the only debate topic on this board that will have any meaning for you is the subject of what are true writings and what are not.

There are people here whose intentions are pure. If you find yourself running into someone you truly believe hates you then simply cease interacting with them. Throwing a mini temper tantrum will not help anyone to take you more seriously.

Gina

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
DHK,

I have tried to provide you, and others, with historical factual documents. It is completely impossible to debate anything, no matter the subject, with only one side's sources. I do not use sola scriptura because I don't believe in sola scriptura. I didn't even believe in that as a Protestant. To me, this seems an arrogant stance to take. If you want my side then you must allow for my sources.

Some years ago the government of Alberta was trying to shut down all private Christian schools in Alberta. During that time a government minister told us plainly that in their philosophy of education "The only absolute is: there are no absolutes."
Of course the foolish statement made above is an absolute statement in itself.

Whether discussing theology or education, one must have a foundation, an absolute basis from which to start from. In any discussion here our foundation is not:
the Book of Mormon,
Not the Catechism,
Not the early Church Fathers,
Not the Magesterium,
Not Ellen G. White,
Not Mary Baker Eddy
Not the Koran
Not an ecumenical smorgasbord of pick and choose of any of the above.

The only foundation or standard that we have is the Bible. All our debates/discussions are based on the Word of God. Our doctrines and beliefs are based on the Word of God. We would not call this the Baptist Board if our doctrines came from the Book of Mormon. If you haven't noticed by now I have never tried to defend myself using the Book of Mormon. Why should I? Because my foundation is the Word of God, the Bible, the Scriptures that God has revealed to us. Therefore I have no need to establish doctrine using the Catechism or church fathers or any other source that you may wish to throw at me. If your doctrine is not established on the Word of God, then it is not worth consideration. The only reason we do discuss it is to show the error of false doctrine.

There are absolutes. They are found in the Bible. Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes unto the Father but by me." Jesus is Truth. All Truth emanates from Him. He is our Absolute.
Truth is not relative. Jesus Christ is the same: yesterday, today and forever. It is timeless, as is Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
DHK

 

[frozencell]

First, I'm not throwing a pity aprty. Simply stating my feelings and observations.

Second, thank you Gina for being one of the few Christian objective people on here. You're Christ-like love and charity is much appreciated. I respect you and enjoy your posts, even if I do not agree with all of them. And I do agree that the Protestant Bible is accurate, only that the Catholic Bible is MORE accurate. My point was that I cannot debate a topic with a version of the Bible that is designed not to include Catholic beliefs. I have decide to cease interaction with those that bring out unChristlike qualities in me, not because I'm chicken, but because I feel convicted to uphold a Christ-like attitude in my posts, as few as they may be from this point on.

Third, you cannot in good conscience say that the Bible is the only true source for historical fact. It's impossible. Of cousre, everything the Bible contains is true and without flaw, but there ARE other resources that are also true to history and can help tell a story.

 

[cotton]

frozencell;
Please reconsider; first off, this is a DEBATE board; people are gonna say things that appear hostile. Please don't take it personally.

Secondly, from my experience, many (if not all) Baptists don't consider themselves Protestant! Protestant churches and Baptist churches vary greatly in traditional beliefs.

And last but not least, bringing 'historical' Catholic document on the Assumption to the argument has the same effect on Baptists, as "Mein Kampf" would to a Jewish synagogue.

IT IS ANETHMA(sp?) TO THEM!!!!

So, my point is if your going to argue with Baptists you have to stick with what they believe is relevant. This is the principle that Paul used "...when I'm with gentiles, I behave as a gentile, when I'm with Jews, I behave as a Jew (to win them over) yada, yada (I'm paraphrasing cause I can't 'member the passage). This is an old rabbinic practice for debate and teaching...stick with what the antagonist/student knows or believes. Its the diversity of the folks here in the 'dungeon' that make this particular forum interesting.

Thanks,
Cotton

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by frozencell:
. And I do agree that the Protestant Bible is accurate, only that the Catholic Bible is MORE accurate. My point was that I cannot debate a topic with a version of the Bible that is designed not to include Catholic beliefs.

#1. Can you point out translation errors in the NASB etc as compared to your Catholic Bible?

#2. IF what you are saying is that the Apocryphal books are the only ones with Catholic doctrine - please explain.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

AS for the assumption of Mary.

The Catholic teaching on the tomb of Mary preceeds the tradition on the assumption of Mary.

The Catholic argument for the assumption is NOT based on the witnesses testimony as in the case of Christ and Acts 1. Rather it is suggestions that arise centuries later.

Even Elijah has his translation recorded and written down - before many centuries pass as in the case of Mary.

Is it really true that "it just wasn't worth mentioning"?

But the real problem is that the case FOR the assumption of Mary is based on heresy - namely that "Mary was sinless like Christ so she should have been assumed into heaven like Christ".

Notice that the Marian post given by Frozencell does not actually address the problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From Frozencells quote --
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature

The distinction is "incarnation" vs "proCREATION" - Mary is not the "MOTHER of God" because she did not procreate her offspring as a PERSON - as though the PERSON was procreated.

If we are not then speaking of the PERSON - then using the phrase "Mary Mother of God" is heresy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew2]

Good post Cotton, with one exception. Bringing the "historical documents on the "assumption" is not bringing the WORD OF GOD to this board. It is nothing more than adding the opinion of one more person to your own opinion.

If you do not have the strength of your own position, the facts with which to argue your beliefs, then don't state your belief because it is not your belief but that of another! You cannot argue, convincingly, another's beliefs or opinions. Argue your own beliefs on the issue, not those of long dead people!

 

[Living4Him]

Well, there sure are alot of interesting points here. And I would like to add a few myself.

1. Constantine was not responsible for Catholicism. Ignatius (85-107); A bishop of Antioch, he first coined the term "Catholic". "Catholic" for the universal followers of Christ. Christianity finally became legal during the reign of Constantine with the Edict of Milan in 312 AD. Before this time,Christianity was an illegal religion because the Christians refused to participate in Emperor Worship and they begin to be persecuted in large numbers. Nero was the first emperor to persecute the Christian followers on a large scale. Persecution reached its height during the reign of Diocletian who attempted to systematically eliminate the followers. (Check any secular source on Ancient Roman Religion).


2. We know that not everything from the beginning of time until the last book of the Bible was written is recorded in the Bible. The Bible even tells us that "Jesus performed many other miracles but these are written that you may believe."

3. I really don't see how anyone can knock "oral tradition". Moses has been given credit for writing the first five books of the Bible. Are we to suppose that the story of creation and everything else that happened before Moses wrote these down were not talked about?

4. Some other things to consider for those who reject oral tradition for "scriptures only". A) Cain was worried about being killed by other people after he killed Abel. The Bible doesn't record how these other people came into being. B)Gen. 4:17 states, "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." How did Cain get a wife? We have no record of these events. It seems important enough to me to have these events recorded.

Therefore just because the assumption isn't written down, doesn't mean that it didn't or couldn't have happened.

 

[cotton]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
Well, there sure are alot of interesting points here. And I would like to add a few myself.

1. Constantine was not responsible for Catholicism. Ignatius (85-107); A bishop of Antioch, he first coined the term "Catholic". "Catholic" for the universal followers of Christ. Christianity finally became legal during the reign of Constantine with the Edict of Milan in 312 AD. Before this time,Christianity was an illegal religion because the Christians refused to participate in Emperor Worship and they begin to be persecuted in large numbers. Nero was the first emperor to persecute the Christian followers on a large scale. Persecution reached its height during the reign of Diocletian who attempted to systematically eliminate the followers. (Check any secular source on Ancient Roman Religion).

Yes, but from the Baptists perspective, Constantine's 'coup de grace' was bringing pagans and Christians together in one big state religion. Baptists understand that catholic means universal, however to them Roman Catholic is the ROMAN UNIVERSAL STATE CHURCH.


2. We know that not everything from the beginning of time until the last book of the Bible was written is recorded in the Bible. The Bible even tells us that "Jesus performed many other miracles but these are written that you may believe."

'...but these are written down that you may believe." Nuff said?

3. I really don't see how anyone can knock "oral tradition". Moses has been given credit for writing the first five books of the Bible. Are we to suppose that the story of creation and everything else that happened before Moses wrote these down were not talked about?

Once again these are Baptists, not necessarily Protestant. They avoid oral tradition like the plague. I do believe oral tradition is important , but it depends on the source. Oral Roman tradition is highly suspect because it absorbed many pagan traditions alongside Judeo-Christian ones.

4. Some other things to consider for those who reject oral tradition for "scriptures only". A) Cain was worried about being killed by other people after he killed Abel. The Bible doesn't record how these other people came into being. B)Gen. 4:17 states, "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." How did Cain get a wife? We have no record of these events. It seems important enough to me to have these events recorded.

Maybe. But it wasn't important enough to God to tell Moses to write it down.

Therefore just because the assumption isn't written down, doesn't mean that it didn't or couldn't have happened.

Well, from that standpoint, I suppose Greek or Norse mythology could be real, but I don't believe it is.

To a Baptist, anything outside scripture (the 66 books) is highly suspect; what you are calling 'historical' evidence and oral tradition came through Rome and as such is alien to them. You'll have about as much luck quoting the Koran.

Cotton