Is Mary ONLY a Catholic doctrine?

[Gary]

If I were handicapped I suppose then Gary might find it sporting to insult me. :-D Haven't seen peace4all around here lately. Yes gary I was not logged in and I saw your fine, intelligent post. I have to say it was one of your better ones. You can take that as an inult if you like or perhaps just see yourself as the object of some humor. :

Still fighting those windmills?

:wink:

What is your favourite passage in 1 and 2 Thessalonians?

I was reading them both over the last few nights and have really come to like this:

1 Thessalonians 1:3 We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Isn't it wonderful?

• your work produced by faith
  your labor prompted by love
  your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[thessalonian]

If I were handicapped I suppose then Gary might find it sporting to insult me. :-D Haven't seen peace4all around here lately. Yes gary I was not logged in and I saw your fine, intelligent post. I have to say it was one of your better ones. You can take that as an inult if you like or perhaps just see yourself as the object of some humor. :

Still fighting those windmills?

:wink:

What is your favourite passage in 1 and 2 Thessalonians?

I was reading them both over the last few nights and have really come to like this:

1 Thessalonians 1:3 We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Isn't it wonderful?

• your work produced by faith
  your labor prompted by love
  your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ

Which of the many straw men you hold to stubbornly, telling me what I believe, are you getting at now? Salvation by works alone? Don't see that in the Catechism. Hmmm. My Catechism talks about faith. Must be a mistake since your telling me that Catholicism doesn't believe in faith and your the expert on what I believe. :o

I never did see you apologize to that poor handcapped fellow. Perhaps I missed it.

Hey, you know I think that "still fighting those windmills" was some sort of an insult. I almost missed it, it was so trite. Sad that's the best you can do.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

And now he's taking my Don Quixote shtick.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattry, if you're into flattery.

To me, it's just creepy.

 

[Gary]

Simple question really. Pity you took it up the wrong way.

What are your favourite passages in 1 and 2 Thessalonians?

I was reading them both over the last few nights and have really come to like this:

1 Thessalonians 1:3 We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Isn't it wonderful?

• your work produced by faith
  your labor prompted by love
  your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ

Now let's go some more.....

I also like this. Very pastoral.

1 Thessalonians 2:10-13 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

What do you think?

.

 

[thessalonian]

What's pastorial? I may have to insult you for your ability to type and spell, especially if your handicapped unless you can come up with the word in a dictionary somewhere.


Is this something thread related. I seem to recall you criticizing OC for allegedly getting off-topic, though I found his question to be a rather good one. Personally I like all of Thessalonians. Both books.

 

[Gary]

Pastoral... sorry.

OK, then let's get back to the thread.

Mary.

I was wondering where else Paul mentioned Mary? Any ideas? I only found Galatians 4:4-5

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

.

 

[thessalonian]

Pastoral... sorry.

OK, then let's get back to the thread.

Mary.

I was wondering where else Paul mentioned Mary? Any ideas? I only found Galatians 4:4-5

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

.

We discussed this red herring before.


So do you suppose that Paul taught the beautitiudes or about the prodigal son? Was he neglectful to some in telling them that Jesus was God. Doesn't seem like he taught most of the communities anything about the trinity. No mention of the Holy Spirit at all to the Colossians.

I am curious as to what you have against Paul speaking about Mary, if you are on this kick that all these protestant theologians have a well developed theology apart from Catholicism about her role in the salvation story?

 

[thessalonian]

Pastoral... sorry.

OK, then let's get back to the thread.

Mary.

I was wondering where else Paul mentioned Mary? Any ideas? I only found Galatians 4:4-5

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

.

We discussed this red herring before.


So do you suppose that Paul taught the beautitiudes or about the prodigal son? Was he neglectful to some in telling them that Jesus was God. Doesn't seem like he taught most of the communities anything about the trinity. No mention of the Holy Spirit at all to the Colossians. Surely you see how idiotic this method of Biblical analysis you have invented is? Perhaps not.

I am curious as to what you have against Paul speaking about Mary, if you are on this kick that all these protestant theologians have a well developed theology apart from Catholicism about her role in the salvation story?

 

[Gary]

So do you suppose that Paul taught the beautitiudes or about the prodigal son?

I have no idea really. He wrote many, many times about Jesus Christ. He wrote about Christ, Jesus Christ our Lord, The Lord Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, The Lord, Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Lord Jesus, Christ Jesus our lord, Jesus, Son of God, Stumbling Stone, Rock of Offence, His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, The Lord of Glory, The Head, Master, Our Lord, Our Saviour Jesus Christ, Chief Corner Stone, King of kings, Lord of Lords....... plus another 40 or so other titles. His letters are filled with Jesus although I have always found it strange that he does not quote Jesus' words directly.

Was he neglectful to some in telling them that Jesus was God.

I have no idea. What do you think and why?

You do remember that he taught the following:

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

"There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to one hope when you were called– one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-6

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. Colossians 1:16-18

Doesn't seem like he taught most of the communities anything about the trinity.

Again, I have no idea. What is your speculation?

I am curious as to what you have against Paul speaking about Mary....

Nothing. He didn't write much about Mary did he?

... if you are on this kick that all these protestant theologians have a well developed theology apart from Catholicism about her role in the salvation story?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

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

When Paul visits the Apostles in Jerusalem and they validate his Gospel message, what do you think that Gospel message was? Did Paul preach the same salvation message as our Lord Jesus Christ?

.

 

[Gary]

And now he's taking my Don Quixote shtick.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattry, if you're into flattery.

To me, it's just creepy.

Nope, you have always and will always own Don Quixote .... way back when you introduced us to your fellows with the hats.

Remember? They were even part of your signature!

:bday: :bday: :bday:

 

[TruthHunter]

Peace Ben.

You may want to give Scriptural support for the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Read about it in CCC #966.

CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Find any references to Scripture (chapter/verse) there?

Peace again Ben

Do you want me to give a scripture for support that the Romans distroyed the Temple too? Or how about That John was the last of the original apostles to die? Everything in the Bible is indeed True, But not all Truth is in the Bible.

 

[Gary]

Everything in the Bible is indeed True, But not all Truth is in the Bible.

I accept that. So where is the Assumption of Mary documented?

Even if one grants the validity of arguments from tradition in general, the traditional argument for the bodily assumption of Mary is weak. Roman Catholic authorities admit that “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries.†Further, they acknowledge that “these are apocryphal.â€Â

In fact, the bodily assumption of Mary was not held by most of the early church fathers. Roman Catholic theologian Ott admits that belief in this dogma did not appear until nearly the seventh century.

Noted Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner acknowledged that “at best it can only be considered as evidence of theological speculation about Mary, which has been given the form of an ostensible historical account.†He adds, “there is nothing of any historical value in such apocryphal works.â€Â

As Miller and Samples aptly note, “To the Protestant, who views Scripture as the only secure anchor for theology, Roman Catholic Mariology having cut loose from this anchor is hopelessly adrift upon a sea of splendid but dubious ‘Roman logic.’ †Citing Victor Buksbazen, “the non-Catholic student of Mariology who tries to follow its shaky premises and strained conclusions finds himself in a kind of theological Alice in Wonderland in which things, in spite of their seeming logic, become ‘curriouser and curriouser.’ â€Â

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 316). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

And now he's taking my Don Quixote shtick.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattry, if you're into flattery.

To me, it's just creepy.

Nope, you have always and will always own Don Quixote .... way back when you introduced us to your fellows with the hats.

Remember? They were even part of your signature!

:bday: :bday: :bday:

Gar-bear, I recommend that you stick to copy pasting and question avoidance. Flaming is assuredly not your game.

 

[Gary]

At least I recognise (and READ) an Evangelical theologian when I see one OC....

You still chasing that J.I Packer windmill? Go Don!

Read what he has written:
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/packer/


By the way, were those three men in long pointed hats part of your new church?

:bday: :bday: :bday:

 

[thessalonian]

Everything in the Bible is indeed True, But not all Truth is in the Bible.

I accept that. So where is the Assumption of Mary documented?

I see you have taken liberties above with regard to things that Catholic theologians have said in this regard. They have said it is nowhere explicit in the biblical text, ie. as John and Peter stood by, Mary was assumed in to heaven. Thsi does not mean that it is not implicit in scripture. If one catches the parrellel between mary and the ark of the covenant one can easily derive the assumption from Ps 132:8 and other verses as Augustine and other fathers did.

Even if one grants the validity of arguments from tradition in general, the traditional argument for the bodily assumption of Mary is weak. Roman Catholic authorities admit that “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries.†Further, they acknowledge that “these are apocryphal.â€Â

This same old fruitcake gets passed around the web alot. That the assumption is not written about explicitly until the 5-6th centuries does not mean that it was not believed by many. The evidence is that the feast of the assumption became quite commonplace by the 6th century even though these transitus naritives, the content of which we do not know, were condemned by Pope Gelasuis and another later Pope. Now Papal condemnations carried much weight in those days. The Church would not have celebrated a feast that was condemned by the Popes. So it is to be assumed that there was other writing in these transitus narratives that was objectionable to Gelasius and others. That something is apocryphal does not mean it is all false. One can find truth in the gospel of thomas. Though there is much error.

In fact, the bodily assumption of Mary was not held by most of the early church fathers. Roman Catholic theologian Ott admits that belief in this dogma did not appear until nearly the seventh century.

Liberties are taken with Ott's words which I have a copy of. He says that it was not EXPLICITLY written about before that time. He does say it is implicit in some of the writings and that the dormition was spoken of.
This would be a difficul thing to prove since few wrote about it. Augustine and I think it was Basil alluded to it and perhaps a couple of others. But once again it is a false assumption to say that because it was not explicitly written that noone believed in it or few believed in it. Try find the words "faith alone" in the early Church fathers or "scripture alone". Both are very rare. Now you will claim they are believed, but unfortunatley for you there are statements that fit with Catholic thinking in both these areas.

Noted Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner acknowledged that “at best it can only be considered as evidence of theological speculation about Mary, which has been given the form of an ostensible historical account.†He adds, “there is nothing of any historical value in such apocryphal works.â€Â

Noted heretical theologian Rahner. Noted defrocked Rahner. Noted disident Rahner. As I said above, apocryphal does not mean all false. We don't even have the writings in the earliest transitive narrative. All we have is a title called "transitus narrative of the Assumption of Mary". We have a work called "On grace and free will" by Pelagius, so I guess that makes him orthodox because he has a title we like.

As Miller and Samples aptly note, “To the Protestant, who views Scripture as the only secure anchor for theology, Roman Catholic Mariology having cut loose from this anchor is hopelessly adrift upon a sea of splendid but dubious ‘Roman logic.’ †Citing Victor Buksbazen, “the non-Catholic student of Mariology who tries to follow its shaky premises and strained conclusions finds himself in a kind of theological Alice in Wonderland in which things, in spite of their seeming logic, become ‘curriouser and curriouser.’ â€Â

Well I simply can't understand why that secure anchor has all these people on this board giving different interprutations to it all. Personally I see the assumption quite clearly in scripture. At least as clear as the three days in the tomb was in the Old Testament. The best Jesus had to fortell that was Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale. Luke 24 says that all was fortold about Jesus, including his three days in the tomb and resurrection. If implicit allegory is good enough for him, then a type of Mary, the Ark of the Covenant and Psalm 132:8 is good enough for me.

 

[Gary]

Jesus SPOKE about His resurrection. Jesus was resurrected. The Gospels record His resurrection. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write about His resurrection. Paul writes about His resurrection.

I see nothing like that about Mary's so-called assumption.

Like Paul and all the New Testament writers, I will focus on our Lord Jesus Christ. You obviously think that focus on Mary is as important.

Use whatever analogy you like..... it is man-made and speculation like a lot of the other Roman Catholic dogma.

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

Psalm 132:8 Some Fathers refer to passages like this psalm “in a typical sense to the mystery of the bodily assumption; ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified,’ †arguing that “the Ark of the Covenant made from incorruptible wood, [was] . . . a type of the incorruptible body of Mary.â€Â

Using verses like this one only confirms the impression that Roman Catholics are grasping for proof texts. First, it is confessedly not a literal interpretation of the text but only an alleged “typical†one which, in this case, boils down to an invalid argument from analogy. Second, the analogy between the ark and Mary is farfetched. Nowhere is any such comparison stated or implied in Scripture. Nor is Mary’s immaculate conception foreshadowed in the creation of the universe in an immaculate state, nor in Eve, the mother of our race. Creating analogies like these prove nothing, except that one has run out of any real biblical support for the dogma.

One could prove almost anything by the same kind of argument.

Third, the argument is based on another baseless belief that Mary’s body was incorruptible after her death and before her alleged assumption. The
Bible says this was true of Christ (Acts 2:30-31), but it nowhere affirms this of Mary.56 Indeed, the Bible equates death with the corruption of all human beings except Christ (1 Corinthians 15:42 , 1 Corinthians 15:53). Yet most Fathers and theologians of the Roman Catholic church believe that “Mary suffered a temporal death†like other mortals. Why then should we believe she was exempted from physical corruption any more than she was not exempted from physical death entailed by the fall (Romans 5:12)?

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 314).

 

[TruthHunter]

Jesus SPOKE about His resurrection. Jesus was resurrected. The Gospels record His resurrection. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write about His resurrection. Paul writes about His resurrection.

I see nothing like that about Mary's so-called assumption.

Like Paul and all the New Testament writers, I will focus on our Lord Jesus Christ. You obviously think that focus on Mary is as important.

I suppoose that you think that Enoch, and Elijah are unimportant as well. Luckly we do have a biblical account, of there assumption into heaven. Mary was the first one after Christ's death to be assumed into heaven, as well our bodies will be assumed and Glorified in heaven. That is why Mary's assumption is important.

Ben

 

[Solo]

Jesus SPOKE about His resurrection. Jesus was resurrected. The Gospels record His resurrection. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write about His resurrection. Paul writes about His resurrection.

I see nothing like that about Mary's so-called assumption.

Like Paul and all the New Testament writers, I will focus on our Lord Jesus Christ. You obviously think that focus on Mary is as important.

I suppoose that you think that Enoch, and Elijah are unimportant as well. Luckly we do have a biblical account, of there assumption into heaven. Mary was the first one after Christ's death to be assumed into heaven, as well our bodies will be assumed and Glorified in heaven. That is why Mary's assumption is important.

Ben

Where does the Bible say that Mary was assumed into heaven? In Acts it says that Mary continued on with the brethren after Jesus' ascension into heaven. No where else is Mary mentioned after this point in time.

No one was assumed after Jesus ascended into heaven. The resurrection of all believers will come when Jesus returns. Those that are dead in Christ, Mary included, will rise first; afterwhich those believers who remain alive will be caught up together with them to meet Jesus Christ in the air. 2 Thessalonians 4.

Mary was the mother of the man Jesus. The Word existed prior to Jesus' birth. Jesus was God before Mary gave birth to him.

 

[thessalonian]

Where does the Bible say that Mary was assumed into heaven? In Acts it says that Mary continued on with the brethren after Jesus' ascension into heaven. No where else is Mary mentioned after this point in time.

No one was assumed after Jesus ascended into heaven. The resurrection of all believers will come when Jesus returns. Those that are dead in Christ, Mary included, will rise first; afterwhich those believers who remain alive will be caught up together with them to meet Jesus Christ in the air. 2 Thessalonians 4.

Mary was the mother of the man Jesus. The Word existed prior to Jesus' birth. Jesus was God before Mary gave birth to him.

I guess the temple wasn't destroyed since the Bible does not mention it. John was around until after the destruction of the temple and he doesn't mention it. Odd, sola scriptura is nowhere found in the Bible. If that is how we are supposed to interpret, wouldn't you think someone would have mentioned it.

"How is it that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD" should come to me. Was it Jesus humanity or his divinity that made him Elizabeth's Lord. You really cannot separate the two. Mary carried in her womb and gave birth to the God of the universe. That is what mothers do. They give birth. Now unless Jesus was not God before he passed through the birth canal, you have a difficult time saying that God did not pass through that birth canal. You cannot say God did not reside in Mary's womb. It is not motherhood to cause conceptions but to bring them to a point where they can live outside the womb and then give birth to them.

Blessings

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I guess the temple wasn't destroyed since the Bible does not mention it. John was around until after the destruction of the temple and he doesn't mention it. Odd, sola scriptura is nowhere found in the Bible. If that is how we are supposed to interpret, wouldn't you think someone would have mentioned it.

"How is it that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD" should come to me. Was it Jesus humanity or his divinity that made him Elizabeth's Lord. You really cannot separate the two. Mary carried in her womb and gave birth to the God of the universe. That is what mothers do. They give birth. Now unless Jesus was not God before he passed through the birth canal, you have a difficult time saying that God did not pass through that birth canal. You cannot say God did not reside in Mary's womb. It is not motherhood to cause conceptions but to bring them to a point where they can live outside the womb and then give birth to them.

Blessings

That's absolute truth, Thess. To separate Christ's humanity from His divinity is not only not biblical (in Him all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily), it catastrophic to the enterprise of redemption. If Jesus was not fully God as He was fully man, then He is simply a good man who died. And I emphasize good man, for there is no way that the flesh of Jesus accomplished sinlessness apart from the Divine will within.

I don't believe Solo holds to the doctrine, but his offhanded statement that Mary bore the man is, essentially, Nestorianism, and is related very closely to the Muslim view of Christ.

My question to Solo is what happened to those MANY saints who were resurrected when Jesus died, who went and showed themselves in Jerusalem after His resurrection? No one could ever find Moses, yet we see him on the mount of Transfiguration speaking with Jesus and another guy whose body was not left behind.

In FACT, those who were supremely close in their walk with God seemed to take the A train to heaven, body and all.