the ASSUMPTION of MARY debate-Tur8infan vs. Albrecht One

[MRGV7373]

St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.3

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 and Sola Scriptura was unknown prior to John Wycliffe in the 14th century, and Sola Fide prior to Martin Luther in the 16th. the canon of scripture was not codified until the late 4th century (New Testament) and the Old Testament not until the 16th (if you accept the Protestant canon, and even if you argue it comes from Jerome, that's still only the 4th century. so you accept development of doctrine in other areas.

[MRGV7373]

@XSC3 Mr. Wycliffe believed that all teaches of the believing church had its basis in scripture. Martin Luther had it right in the 16th century. Cyril of Jerusalem AD386, Believe not in what is spoken: unless thou learn form Holy Scriptures.NPNF2, Vol 7, Catechetical Lectures 4:17. Irenaeus teaches that all teaching of scripture -doctrine is to be grounded and pillar of our faith. Paul used scripture in Icor15:1-4. to prove Jesus resurrection. So no new or verbal teaching are to be added

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 "Irenaeus teaches that all teaching of scripture -doctrine is to be grounded and pillar of our faith. " yet Scripture itself says that the Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Irenaeus does refer to the scripture AND the tradition (see for example against heresies book 3, chapter 2, paragraph 2). Irenaeus had Roman primacy and apostolic succession in there too and the apostolic preaching

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 you can accept Sola Scriptura and STILL believe in the development of doctrine, though. I think you're trying to hold to SS and reject development of doctrine. I believe you would have to accept DOD in order to accept SS in the first place. but in accepting DOD you leave open the possibility that SS might not be absolute, allowing for things not explicitly mentioned in scripture, being part of the truth of the Christian faith.

[MRGV7373]

@XSC3 Sola Scriptura the early church father Cyril of Jerusalem taught that the church is subject to the final authority of scripture and even the church is to be disregarded if it moves outside the authority of scripture. The early church always verified what was spoken against the scriptures to verify teaching. Berean's did this in Act17:11 and Jesus open the minds of the two travelers to Emmaus Luke24:25. Even Jesus uses the scripture to teach His resurrection. Jesus is the example.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 the trouble is those apostles and Jesus were basically writing new scriptures all over the place (their words became scripture!). as for Cyril of Jerusalem, let's see, he lived when? 4th century. so even if he did teach sola scriptura (which I doubt), that's pretty late. so sola scriptura, if you accept it, is DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. since after all, we have to know what scripture is, before we can begin to say it's the sole authority (and if tradition can define it...)

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 so the Holy Spirit gradually reveals the inspired canon to us... and gradually (in your view) reveals Sola scriptura (a pretty important doctrine in your camp), same with sola fide, and you have a problem with the assumption of mary being gradually revealed?

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 and depending upon what sort of protestant you are, it gets even worse, because if you are a Lutheran today, you don't believe what Luther actually taught but the development of that doctrine after his death. same with Calvin or pretty much any of the great "reformers" one can name. and for many of those positions, you end up with reformers who contradict one another. so even in the 16th century, it took some time, years, generations, for the faith you hold to form.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 so in short, if you reject "development of doctrine" it's not just Catholics that are going to be in trouble as a result. you'll find yourself there quickly enough. I doubt you live the faith identically no more no less than what appear in the pages of the NT. even there, we don't know that every "church" in the NT was the same. in fact, we know they were different, for example between the Jews and the Hellenists. and Acts 15 changed some things, apostles named new people,etc

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 the trouble with quoting Cyril at this point is that the doctrines he promotes are far more Catholic then protestant. this means then that he thought all of these were proved by Scripture alone. so even if you think he taught SS, and he was right in doing so, you ought to follow his teachings and become Catholic (or at least cease to be protestant).

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 couldn't the holy spirit reveal that information to the Church? (as, I presume you believe He revealed the canon of scripture, and doctrines I'm sure you hold like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide?)

[MRGV7373]

@XSC3 Jesus , Peter and Paul all preached salvation in Jesus Christ. No other Gospel is saving. The RCC promotes a human teaching that did not come from Jesus, Peter or Paul on the assumption of Mary. John the Apostle did not either and he is the most valid of all the NT writer since John travel and took care of Mary. No one even teaches this or tries to find Mary's body until 800 AD. This teaching has no historical or biblical revealed teaching. It is a fabrication of theology.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 the RCC doesn't preach "another gospel." this is foolishness. we have the exact same Gospel as you do, because you got it from us, Protestant.

Where did "Sola Scriptura" come from? Not from Jesus or the Apostles, my friend. so either you think the Holy Spirit was with the men who developed it, or it's a purely human invention, and you don't have any room to talk. so you're in a worse spot than you think we are, because it took 1300 years to get SS.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 the bible itself is a development of doctrine. the Jews were completely unaware that there were 27 new books that they were supposed to accept as inspired. heck, many Christians didn't seem to know this, until the Church councils of the 4th century. and the Old Testament, well that was settled as well.

[MRGV7373]

@XSC3 the OT cannon was not fixed in the RCC church until Trent in the 16th century and NT Cannon was developing from the 200's and finally fixed in the 400's. Patristric writings help in some areas. The early writers supported SS and the development of doctrine. But no new doctrines should be added like the teachings on Mary, and papal infallibility. Papal infallibility is rejected by two popes in the 500 AD area of time and Mary dogma was never doctrine in the early church.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 so you agree that the canon developed. why won't you admit that SS developed? Which Church Fathers taught Sola Scripture? And if they did, why did they teach so many Catholic doctrines which you reject? I think you've created a lot more problems for yourself if you reject these Catholic teachings because of them not being spelled out from 1st century records.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 the very men who invented Sola Scriptura believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. so essentially, in asserting that Jesus had blood brothers, you'd be saying you know the Scriptures better than the men who originated the doctrine by which you say all these things. why is development of doctrine okay in some cases, but not in others? I don't understand your position.

[MRGV7373]

@XSC3 Some of them did - Luther was one. But others did not. I am saying that Sola Scriptura and Mary is just a women is just a fine and stable teaching.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 of course she's "just a woman" (we didn't say she was an angel or a goddess, did we? no, we didn't). However, she is different from other women, in that she is the MOTHER OF GOD, all generations call her blessed, full of grace (as the angel said), has found favor with God, and so forth.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 what about John the baptist, wasn't he full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb? He leapt in the womb for joy upon the meeting of his mother with the mother bearing Christ. more on this later, please remind me this weekend.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 which Protestant reformer said that Mary was a sinner and had sex and bore children after Jesus? I'm curious which ones you think taught this.

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 which apostle gave us the canon? Did Jesus? I'm sorry but William Webster is wrong. quoting Jesus saying "the law, the prophets and the psalms" won't cinch it, because you have to know what those broad terms encompass (what about the other writings?). and we know that simply quoting from or alluding to a writing doesn't make it canonically inspired (nor does the lack make it non-canonical).

[MRGV7373]

@XSC3 Marian dogma's are added in 1870 teachings and immaculate birth and countered by Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and most Church historians.The ever virgin birth is counter in Act 1:14 and Icor15. Since the Greek does site Jesus as having blood brothers. Mary as assumed was never taught by any church fathers,Peter, Paul or John and no historical records of integrity site Mary bodily rose from the dead.

These teaching cause many to shudder at anything but SS. No adding on the NT teacing

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 so why didn't Jesus' "blood brothers" take care of Mary? 

[XSC3]

@MRGV7373 but where does it say our understanding and authority must be limited to what is written in Scripture? and how do we know the canon of Scripture without some authority outside the NT? that's what I'm saying. more on this this weekend, God willing.

[MrJeffhvass]

There is no historical facts that Mary was ever assumed into heaven. The assumption is based on theological basis. So no object reality can be confirmed. No scriptural references in the NT. No outside histories exist to verify the assumption. No evidence, patristic proof don't have any historical verification also. It should not be taught as dogma or infallible since it is not something that can be objective or apostolic verified.

[ComeHomeCatholics]

After reading Revelation 12:1 look at the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the similarities are astounding.

[august777888]

St Mary is venerated by Catholics NOT worshipped. St Mary intercedes on our behalf to Jesus the redeemer. She does not redeem. That alone is the domain of Jesus the Redeemer.

[bella50008]

@august777888 ... Venerated = to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion...sounds like worship to me. In fact, it is worship. Mary does NOT intercede on behalf of anyone to Jesus. There is no barrier between the true believer and God. You are worshipping a demon whom your FALLIBLE popes conveniently named Mary centuries ago.

[XSC3]

@bella50008 how is it then, that living Christians can intercede with God on our behalf? Or are you forbidden to pray for another person, in your church? So you're accusing us first of worshiping Mary and second of confusing a demon with Mary, and in fact being demon worshipers. What rubbish. But it's a serious charge, so answer my question first.

[courag1]

Enoch walked with God and was not for God took him. The Bible says "God took him." And being as this is indeed a very rare event, is recorded in scripture. God took Elijah up to which is the reason that since they did not die, they could come back. Would it not have been just as rare for Mary, but the scripture is silent on her being taken up.

Via the apparitions of Mary who asks for chapels be built for her so that men might worship her, worship only belongs to God.

[drowningfishyo]

read the begining of luke.

the begining of the hail mary is there

she is called the handmaiden of the lord

full of grace or favor

It says From henceforth ALL GENERATIONS shall call her blessed.

king james bible

[Paleolutheran]

The issue is whether Protestants are correct in seeing "explicit texts" regarding what they often disagree with. That Scripture was all that was used by the early Christians ignores the Regula Fide. "Chris is arisen" and "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" are older than the New Testament Scriptures, and mean more and are more important than the Old Testament, which points to the reality these creeds express.

[roger11967]

Thank you... I belive in the ASSUMTION of Mary