The Bodily Ascension of Sinless Mary Into Heaven? - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 01:39 AM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
The Bodily Ascension of Sinless Mary Into Heaven?

"The Roman Catholic Feast of the Assumption is observed on August 15, 2008.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers the following details regarding this Marian dogma…
This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin.

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known… Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain.

The Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all."

OT: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=6105
Phillystang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 02:51 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Nice gesture, but about as blasphemous as hell.
Denny is offline  
post #3 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 07:26 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
If you look at the Oriental and Greek Orthodox Churches, they celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos. This is saying even more than the Catholic Church does.

Even wonder why no Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Catholic Church claims to have any relics of Mary?

Also, why would it be blasphemous? Elijah and Enoch were both assumed. The only difference is that it is written in Canonical Scripture.

Does an event have to be in canon to be true? The Books of Maccabees are not in the Protestant or Jewish canons, yet the Jews celebrate Hanukkah. Oops.

Edit:

I am pulling a McCain by quoting Wikipedia.

1 Maccabees states: "For eight days they celebrated the rededication of the altar. Then Judah and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the rededication...should be observed...every year...for eight days. (1 Mac.4:56-59)"

According to 2 Maccabees, "the Jews celebrated joyfully for eight days as on the feast of Booths."

You will not find this in your Bible or the Jewish Bible.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
 
post #4 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 08:51 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
If you look at the Oriental and Greek Orthodox Churches, they celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos. This is saying even more than the Catholic Church does.

Even wonder why no Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Catholic Church claims to have any relics of Mary?

Also, why would it be blasphemous? Elijah and Enoch were both assumed. The only difference is that it is written in Canonical Scripture.

Does an event have to be in canon to be true? The Books of Maccabees are not in the Protestant or Jewish canons, yet the Jews celebrate Hanukkah. Oops.

Edit:

I am pulling a McCain by quoting Wikipedia.

1 Maccabees states: "For eight days they celebrated the rededication of the altar. Then Judah and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the rededication...should be observed...every year...for eight days. (1 Mac.4:56-59)"

According to 2 Maccabees, "the Jews celebrated joyfully for eight days as on the feast of Booths."

You will not find this in your Bible or the Jewish Bible.
I'm waiting for the spoon fed version.
FSON is offline  
post #5 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 09:23 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1

Also, why would it be blasphemous? Elijah and Enoch were both assumed. The only difference is that it is written in Canonical Scripture.

The fact that she is considered sinless is blasphemous.

"All have sinned and fallen short......." (Rom 3:23)

Also, she is not a "Queen" of anything. She was just a very special teen chosen by God because of her pure heart and mind, but this was in no way to be taken to mean that she was sinless. She lived and died just like the rest of us, as well as having other children and a normal husband/wife relationship.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #6 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 09:37 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Also, why would it be blasphemous? Elijah and Enoch were both assumed. The only difference is that it is written in Canonical Scripture.
Bible verse or it didn't happen!
Denny is offline  
post #7 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 09:54 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Isn't Mary the mother of G#d?
Please some respect people.

Oh Mary, mother of G#d, thank you for sending the rain today (fumbling with beads, fumbling with beads), amen.

Why should some go straight to Heaven upon mortal death and the rest wait? There should be no difference if have been saved through the Christ process... all are saints. OK, some may get more stars in their crowns. So, what is the cut off point?
FSON is offline  
post #8 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 11:30 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Bible verse or it didn't happen!
So Hanukkah did not happen and the Jews celebrate a false holiday ofr Jews. Maccabees is not in the Bible.

The Temple was never re-dedicated or rebuilt.

Jesus was never in the Temple since it was not there.

Peter did not die in Rome.
Paul did not die in Rome.

The Bible does not exist! (There is not table of contents as declared by God).

There is no "Trinity". The Holy Spirit must be a creation of God like an Angel.

Wow, the list just goes on and on of things that are not in the Bible so they didn't happen.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #9 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 11:34 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
The fact that she is considered sinless is blasphemous.

"All have sinned and fallen short......." (Rom 3:23)

Also, she is not a "Queen" of anything. She was just a very special teen chosen by God because of her pure heart and mind, but this was in no way to be taken to mean that she was sinless. She lived and died just like the rest of us, as well as having other children and a normal husband/wife relationship.
That has nothing to do with wether she was assumed into heaven or not. You just changed the subject. Try to answer at least one of my questions instead or using a dead herring.

Back to the point about the assumption of Mary. How do you know she was not assumed? Where are her relics? Where is her tomb (with body)?

Why is blasphemy for most of Christians and ALL of the earliest Christians (wether Catholic or not) to believe that she was assumed?

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #10 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 11:57 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
That has nothing to do with wether she was assumed into heaven or not. You just changed the subject. Try to answer at least one of my questions instead or using a dead herring.

Back to the point about the assumption of Mary. How do you know she was not assumed? Where are her relics? Where is her tomb (with body)?

Why is blasphemy for most of Christians and ALL of the earliest Christians (wether Catholic or not) to believe that she was assumed?
Brian....where are the relics of any of the disciples? Where are their bodies? Most would have at least an execution record. Rome was very thorough about these things. The fact that we can't find a 2000 year old tomb or body means nothing. That is like saying that anyone whom has no record or "discovered" body was assumed. You can't assume by default that someone was taken to heaven alive because we can't find their bones anywhere.....


Early Christians, mainly catholics, believed what they were told to believe, because for the most part, society was uneducated. They could not study their own bibles until they became publicly available, and we all know what happened then. They had to believe what was decreed....which by the way, changed pretty consistently.

There..two direct answers...This is the last I will comment on it though because I know that you put more faith in the church than you do scripture, if I remember correctly.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #11 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 12:03 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
So Hanukkah did not happen and the Jews celebrate a false holiday ofr Jews. Maccabees is not in the Bible.

The Temple was never re-dedicated or rebuilt.

Jesus was never in the Temple since it was not there.

Peter did not die in Rome.
Paul did not die in Rome.

The Bible does not exist! (There is not table of contents as declared by God).

There is no "Trinity". The Holy Spirit must be a creation of God like an Angel.

Wow, the list just goes on and on of things that are not in the Bible so they didn't happen.
I think your Brain_Mach2 now
FSON is offline  
post #12 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 12:08 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
"
The Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all."

OT: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=6105
This is the law, learn it.
Any further debate will be about the authority of the Catholic Church, no?
FSON is offline  
post #13 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 03:21 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
Why should some go straight to Heaven upon mortal death and the rest wait? There should be no difference if have been saved through the Christ process... all are saints. OK, some may get more stars in their crowns. So, what is the cut off point?
The Old Testament Saints are with God already because of their faith in Him. New Testament Saints are likewise with God already because of their belief in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice made for us. The rest who have died since wait for resurrection and final judgement upon the Second Coming.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #14 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 03:29 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
The Old Testament Saints are with God already because of their faith in Him. New Testament Saints are likewise with God already because of their belief in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice made for us. The rest who have died since wait for resurrection and final judgement upon the Second Coming.
Those who have accepted Christ are NT saints
FSON is offline  
post #15 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 03:57 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
Brian....where are the relics of any of the disciples? Where are their bodies?
St. Paul: St. Paul’s Outside the Walls in Rome
St. Peter: St. Peter's Basilica in Rome
St. James (can’t remember if Lesser or Greater): Compostella Spain
St. Thomas: Edessa, Syria
St. Mark the Evangelist: St. Mark’s in Venice, Italy
St. Luke and St. Andrew both had their remains moved to Constantinople in 4th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
Most would have at least an execution record. Rome was very thorough about these things. The fact that we can't find a 2000 year old tomb or body means nothing. That is like saying that anyone whom has no record or "discovered" body was assumed.
According to the above, Jesus was not executed. Where is his ROMAN RECORD? (Josephus does not count)

With all the relics in the hands of Oriental Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic hands, isn’t it strange no one CLAIMS to have relics of Mary? The Early Christians provided the Bible, not the Roman Government. You believe the New Testament don't you? Why do you believe these people when they say what books are inspired but you do not believe them when they say Mary was assumed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
You can't assume by default that someone was taken to heaven alive because we can't find their bones anywhere.....
Who is saying Mary was taken to Heaven Alive? Did you just insert that on your own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
Early Christians, mainly catholics, believed what they were told to believe, because for the most part, society was uneducated. They could not study their own bibles until they became publicly available, and we all know what happened then. They had to believe what was decreed....which by the way, changed pretty consistently.
How very Biblical! Listening to what you are taught! “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

You believe in the Bible which is not in the Bible. This means that not everything you believe is in the Bible. If you are allowed to believe in the Bible, you have no leg to stand on to tell me I am wrong for believing that Mary was Assumed. You do not have to believe, but you can’t point a finger at any of the Catholic or Orthodox and say it did not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
There..two direct answers...This is the last I will comment on it though because I know that you put more faith in the church than you do scripture, if I remember correctly.
I believe in Scripture (which is why I quote scripture) but I know that scripture points to One Church and Apostles leading it. It never points to an individual and their Bible alone (see 2Timothy3 and 2Peter20-21).

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A

Last edited by Brain_Mach1; 08-15-2008 at 04:13 PM.
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #16 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-15-2008, 10:13 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
So Hanukkah did not happen and the Jews celebrate a false holiday ofr Jews. Maccabees is not in the Bible.

The Temple was never re-dedicated or rebuilt.

Jesus was never in the Temple since it was not there.

Peter did not die in Rome.
Paul did not die in Rome.

The Bible does not exist! (There is not table of contents as declared by God).

There is no "Trinity". The Holy Spirit must be a creation of God like an Angel.

Wow, the list just goes on and on of things that are not in the Bible so they didn't happen.
Hmmm... I guess you've never read it, by some of your "points." Wow, just wow.
Denny is offline  
post #17 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-16-2008, 01:45 AM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
This is the law, learn it.
Any further debate will be about the authority of the Catholic Church, no?
It is too late, we are already accursed

Vatican 1
"If, then, any should deny that it is by institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
Phillystang is offline  
post #18 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-16-2008, 08:42 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
Those who have accepted Christ are NT saints
Not that simple:

James 2:14-26 (KJV)
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #19 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 11:35 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Not that simple:

James 2:14-26 (KJV)
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Not the same. If one is saved and has received the spirit, works are part of the makeup.
The question then may be, what is the difference between faith and being saved?
FSON is offline  
post #20 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 07:35 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Hmmm... I guess you've never read it, by some of your "points." Wow, just wow.
Again dead Herring!

If you can not defend you stance "if it is not in the Bible" then you should not call Orthodox and Catholics blasphemous and it moght not be a bad idea to study the early churches.

I gave you 2 Orthodox/Catholic Bible verses to show my point. You gave nothing then insinuate I don't read the Bible.

Wow, just Wow.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A

Last edited by Brain_Mach1; 08-18-2008 at 07:51 PM.
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #21 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 07:53 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
It is too late, we are already accursed

Vatican 1
"If, then, any should deny that it is by institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
Bible trivia!

Which Pauline letter uses similarly strong language?

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #22 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 08:01 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Bible trivia!

Which Pauline letter uses similarly strong language?
Paul's defense of salvation by grace through faith and not of works from the book of Galatians

Galatians 1
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Phillystang is offline  
post #23 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 06:21 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
Not the same. If one is saved and has received the spirit, works are part of the makeup.
The question then may be, what is the difference between faith and being saved?
Faith alone implies a belief in something. Faith is a prerequisite to being saved. Once one is saved, their life is transformed, and if one is truly saved, their life is transformed permanently. Once transformed, works follow.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #24 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 07:58 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Faith alone implies a belief in something. Faith is a prerequisite to being saved. Once one is saved, their life is transformed, and if one is truly saved, their life is transformed permanently. Once transformed, works follow.
From your statement, I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing or repeating.
FSON is offline  
post #25 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 08:20 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Faith without works is dead (faith), as opposed to living faith. Faith leads to the salvation, which leads to the transformation and following works. The works are the fruit of the spirit.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #26 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 08:35 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
From your statement, I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing or repeating.
You asked ".....what is the difference between faith and being saved" did you not?
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #27 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 10:34 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: McKinney
Posts: 371
Let the Catholics read 2 Thessalonians 2 and see who they think the Man of Sin (antichrist) is......

RiceStang is offline  
post #28 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-21-2008, 08:11 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Paul's defense of salvation by grace through faith and not of works from the book of Galatians

Galatians 1
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
We would also have accepted: 1Cor16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Does your Church speak with this kind of authority? If anyone denies the authority of the apostles, they are prerverting the gospel of Christ and are to be Anathema.

Binding letters from binding councils see Acts 15.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A

Last edited by Brain_Mach1; 08-21-2008 at 08:21 AM.
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #29 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-21-2008, 01:17 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
We would also have accepted: 1Cor16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Does your Church speak with this kind of authority? If anyone denies the authority of the apostles, they are prerverting the gospel of Christ and are to be Anathema.

Binding letters from binding councils see Acts 15.
I do not deny the authority of any apostles, I deny your use of Scriptural gymnastics to create doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.

Do you agree or disagree with the Church's conclusions from the Canons of the Council of Orange in 529AD?
Phillystang is offline  
post #30 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-21-2008, 02:45 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
I do not deny the authority of any apostles, I deny your use of Scriptural gymnastics to create doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.

Do you agree or disagree with the Church's conclusions from the Canons of the Council of Orange in 529AD?
I do not think the spirit was freely moving about in the chamber of the Council of Orange. The over riding intention was limitation.
FSON is offline  
post #31 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-23-2008, 07:50 AM
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
I don't recall anything in the Bible saying Mary was sinless.





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #32 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-23-2008, 07:53 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx Redneck
I don't recall anything in the Bible saying Mary was sinless.
I couldn't find where it says she wasn't, so it's not good enough for some of these people.
Denny is offline  
post #33 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-23-2008, 08:29 AM
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
I couldn't find where it says she wasn't, so it's not good enough for some of these people.
Do you mean where it says she was or wasn't sinless?





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #34 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-25-2008, 09:12 PM
On a downward spiral
 
idrivea4banger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the land of the crazy and the wicked; a place far far away from reality; in a distant galaxy with demonic beings, a place only known as: crooked I
Posts: 5,334
hey thats my birthday and im not sinless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof
Hopefully this storm will blow idrivea4banger's sig the fuck away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangman_2000
Someone who is able, needs to put the cock block on his ridiculous sig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooter
and your sig causes distress in 74% of board members and 98% of migratory birds
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOSTED32V
No, your sig sucks like a whitegirl trying to get a promotion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Prez
my excuse is i dont give a fuck...
idrivea4banger is offline  
post #35 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-26-2008, 09:04 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
I do not deny the authority of any apostles, I deny your use of Scriptural gymnastics to create doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.

Do you agree or disagree with the Church's conclusions from the Canons of the Council of Orange in 529AD?
I am not sure what you mean by “my scriptural gymnastics.” I have noticed that the more I get into scripture, the further you get from it.

The acts of the council of 529AD were signed by Pope Boniface II on 25 January 531. This means that I am required to believe the content. "The person who hears you hears me, and the person who rejects you rejects me. The person who rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

A council debating topics, clarifying doctrine to correct error and the results ratified by an authority, does this sound familiar? (See Acts Chapter 15)

The interesting thing about Canons of the Council of Orange is that they were used by both Catholics and Calvinists to support their particular interpretation. They are part of the Council of Trent and I understand that John Calvin used them in his writings.

I am not sure why Calvin would reference a Catholic document that is not the Bible….

Anyway, I do like the use of Anathema in the Canons. “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” There appears to be a historic link from the Apostles, thru the Early Fathers to the Councils of today with using anathema.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #36 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-26-2008, 09:17 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx Redneck
I don't recall anything in the Bible saying Mary was sinless.
Is there anything saying she was not?

Is the phrase "Bible verse or it didn't happen!" Biblical?

John was charged with caring for Mary and he writes, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

Denny was shocked to learn that Jews celebrate Hanukkah, a feast not described in the Bible for miracles that are not described in the Bible.

Ask these very important questions,
1. From where does the table of contents for the Bible come?
2. The Church that Saul of Tarsus persecuted, what Bible did they use?

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #37 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-26-2008, 09:52 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Is there anything saying she was not?
argumentum ad silentio
Phillystang is offline  
post #38 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-26-2008, 09:53 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
I am not sure what you mean by “my scriptural gymnastics.” I have noticed that the more I get into scripture, the further you get from it.

The acts of the council of 529AD were signed by Pope Boniface II on 25 January 531. This means that I am required to believe the content. "The person who hears you hears me, and the person who rejects you rejects me. The person who rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

A council debating topics, clarifying doctrine to correct error and the results ratified by an authority, does this sound familiar? (See Acts Chapter 15)

The interesting thing about Canons of the Council of Orange is that they were used by both Catholics and Calvinists to support their particular interpretation. They are part of the Council of Trent and I understand that John Calvin used them in his writings.

I am not sure why Calvin would reference a Catholic document that is not the Bible….

Anyway, I do like the use of Anathema in the Canons. “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” There appears to be a historic link from the Apostles, thru the Early Fathers to the Councils of today with using anathema.
Arguments from silence regarding Mary's sinlessness are no evidence that you are getting into Scripture with this discussion.

If you and all Catholics are required to believe the content from the Councils of Orange, wouldn't Catholic soteriology be monergistic rather than synergistic as it is today?
Phillystang is offline  
post #39 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-26-2008, 10:00 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Just curious Brain,

If Mary is to be so adored and admired and praised, why is there no mention of her in the New Testament beyond the book of Acts?
Phillystang is offline  
post #40 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-26-2008, 10:04 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Look, you guys... this argument should have been over at the time Jesus said "The only way to the Father is throughMe." He is now our High Priest. Anything we bring to God in prayer NEEDS to go through Him.He is our Sacrifice and our only source of Salvation. Any focus on anything else is not putting Him first.
Denny is offline  
post #41 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-27-2008, 10:03 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Have you ever noticed how you change the subject when you can't answer questions?

Instead of waving these dead herrings, can you please explain (as I have requested MANY times in this tread):
Why you believe something must be in the Bible to be true or explain John 21:25? Hanukkah?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
If you and all Catholics are required to believe the content from the Councils of Orange, wouldn't Catholic soteriology be monergistic rather than synergistic as it is today?
Since you did not know what exegesis means, I doubt you know what any of the above means either.

1st, the Council of Orange does not teach monergistic soteriology. The summary states:
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.

If it did not require anything of man, what responsibility does man have perform what is of essential important in regard to the salvation of their soul?

2nd, Paragraph 1989 of the Catholic Catechism says that the first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion. Take a look at paragraph 1993 for more detail about grace and remarks from the Council of Trent.

argumentum ad silentio, I love it. You are aware that you can’t even point to a Biblical source to show that the Canon as you know it is real. You believe your Bible Table of Contenets which is not even in the Bible.

Acts 15 shows that a Church council ratified by Peter can define doctrine. A Church Council defined doctrine on Mary and it was ratified by the successor of Peter. You referneced this yourself.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #42 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-27-2008, 10:08 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Look, you guys... this argument should have been over at the time Jesus said "The only way to the Father is throughMe." He is now our High Priest. Anything we bring to God in prayer NEEDS to go through Him.He is our Sacrifice and our only source of Salvation. Any focus on anything else is not putting Him first.
Don't throw stones. Defying a Church Council is "about as blasphemous as hell." Does this sound familiar Denny? "Bible verse or it didn't happen!" Does this sound familiar?

What you said above is correct, but it does not correct the errors that are being posted in this thread.

If you do not listen to the Aposltes or their successors, you are not listening to Christ.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #43 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-28-2008, 07:50 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Just curious Brain,

If Mary is to be so adored and admired and praised, why is there no mention of her in the New Testament beyond the book of Acts?
I love this one.

You have been instructed by me that adoration is only for God according to the Catholic Church. When you claim that Catholics have adoration for Mary, you are committing false witness, because a knowledgable Catholic has told you this is not true.

Questions like this are equivalent to me asking why you choose to beat your mother or why you use heroine.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #44 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-28-2008, 08:25 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
I love this one.

You have been instructed by me that adoration is only for God according to the Catholic Church. When you claim that Catholics have adoration for Mary, you are committing false witness, because a knowledgable Catholic has told you this is not true.

Questions like this are equivalent to me asking why you choose to beat your mother or why you use heroine.
No need to side step the question, adoration can mean profound love or regard. Forget adoration for the moment, why is there no mention of Mary beyond Acts?
Phillystang is offline  
post #45 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-28-2008, 08:42 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Have you ever noticed how you change the subject when you can't answer questions?

Instead of waving these dead herrings, can you please explain (as I have requested MANY times in this tread):
Why you believe something must be in the Bible to be true or explain John 21:25? Hanukkah?Since you did not know what exegesis means, I doubt you know what any of the above means either.
This is the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.

For instance, the following is how ridiculous your argument is:

Frank says "the Apostle Paul ate waffles everyday for breakfast and this is what my church teaches."

John says, "where do you get that from? It's not in my Bible..."

Frank- "Well, is there anything saying he didn't eat waffles for breakfast everyday? So I am right"
Phillystang is offline  
post #46 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-28-2008, 09:10 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Since you did not know what exegesis means, I doubt you know what any of the above means either.
Keep doubting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
1st, the Council of Orange does not teach monergistic soteriology. The summary states:
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.
Grace is received through baptism? Does the Council of Orange teach that grace is received through our acts? No, quite the contrary, see the bold.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
2nd, Paragraph 1989 of the Catholic Catechism says that the first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion. Take a look at paragraph 1993 for more detail about grace and remarks from the Council of Trent.
Is this grace acquired by the will of man? Or does the grace of God cause the man to be willing?

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
argumentum ad silentio, I love it. You are aware that you can’t even point to a Biblical source to show that the Canon as you know it is real. You believe your Bible Table of Contenets which is not even in the Bible.
Who says they are supposed to be listed in the Bible? Why did it take until 1546 for the Catholic Church to recognize the Apocrypha as sacred?

What did Jerome (340-420) say about the Apocrypha?

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Acts 15 shows that a Church council ratified by Peter can define doctrine. A Church Council defined doctrine on Mary and it was ratified by the successor of Peter. You referneced this yourself.
The inspired apostles can, but there is no apostolic succession.

Peter clearly defines the qualifications of the one to replace Judas and there is no hint of further succession:
-one who has been with the apostles the whole time the Lord was among them
-a witness of the resurrection

Acts 1
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
Phillystang is offline  
post #47 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-28-2008, 09:51 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Don't throw stones. Defying a Church Council is "about as blasphemous as hell." Does this sound familiar Denny? "Bible verse or it didn't happen!" Does this sound familiar?

What you said above is correct, but it does not correct the errors that are being posted in this thread.

If you do not listen to the Aposltes or their successors, you are not listening to Christ.
Christ questioned the pharisees and sadducees when they obviously weren't getting the picture. Martin Luther and his 95 thesis... just sayin'

I'm not defying the Chruch Council, they're screwing up just fine.
Denny is offline  
post #48 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-29-2008, 06:54 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Christ questioned the pharisees and sadducees when they obviously weren't getting the picture. Martin Luther and his 95 thesis... just sayin'

I'm not defying the Chruch Council, they're screwing up just fine.
Your theology is based on a book which you cannot explain how it got into print.

The Table of Contents for your bible is from Church Council.

Martin Luther tried to change the table of contents, but you will quickly forget this.

To believe in the Bible requires that you first believe in the authority of the Church Councils.

Moses provided the people with the Torah, Mohamed with the Koran, James Smith with the Book of Morman. The Bible, as a single bound book, is from Catholic Church. God works through people. Even people who have it wrong are still historical. You have not been able to point to any history for your Bible.

Any argument you make from the Bible requires that you first recognize the authority of the council. If not, you have no book. This is hard to swallow, which is why you continue to avoid answering from where your table of contents comes.

I am also interested in your personal theology that, "If it is not in the Bible, it did not happen." Please give some biblical support. John 21:25 does not appear to agree with you.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #49 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-29-2008, 07:43 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Your theology is based on a book which you cannot explain how it got into print.

The Table of Contents for your bible is from Church Council.

Martin Luther tried to change the table of contents, but you will quickly forget this.

To believe in the Bible requires that you first believe in the authority of the Church Councils.

Moses provided the people with the Torah, Mohamed with the Koran, James Smith with the Book of Morman. The Bible, as a single bound book, is from Catholic Church. God works through people. Even people who have it wrong are still historical. You have not been able to point to any history for your Bible.

Any argument you make from the Bible requires that you first recognize the authority of the council. If not, you have no book. This is hard to swallow, which is why you continue to avoid answering from where your table of contents comes.

I am also interested in your personal theology that, "If it is not in the Bible, it did not happen." Please give some biblical support. John 21:25 does not appear to agree with you.
Nice try. Believing the Word of God is not the same as accepting blasphemous ritualistic crap that the Church does. praying to Mary and other Saints IS A SIN!!!! End of discussion. "You shall have no other gods before Me." Remember that one?

And what about John 21:25?!?! Hold on, let me quote it here:
Quote:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
This talks about things JESUS did! Did it have anything to say about your beloved Mary? No. Let's try to tackle one ridiculous notion at a time. When you understand that Mary is nothing other than a woman that was chosen to give birth to Jesus, then we can move along, but I don't see us making much progress because you keep changing the subject when called out.

Let's try this again, shall we? We are to pray to none other than Jesus since He is the One who became our sin and was our sacrifice and is now our High Priest. The only way to the Father is through Him.
Denny is offline  
post #50 of 59 (permalink) Old 08-29-2008, 08:27 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Nice try. Believing the Word of God is not the same as accepting blasphemous ritualistic crap that the Church does. praying to Mary and other Saints IS A SIN!!!! End of discussion. "You shall have no other gods before Me." Remember that one?

And what about John 21:25?!?! Hold on, let me quote it here:

This talks about things JESUS did! Did it have anything to say about your beloved Mary? No. Let's try to tackle one ridiculous notion at a time. When you understand that Mary is nothing other than a woman that was chosen to give birth to Jesus, then we can move along, but I don't see us making much progress because you keep changing the subject when called out.

Let's try this again, shall we? We are to pray to none other than Jesus since He is the One who became our sin and was our sacrifice and is now our High Priest. The only way to the Father is through Him.
I don't like you, praise Mary. You are making all the Catholic world appear to be demonic, praise Mary. That is not nice, praise Mary. You should be more accepting of other people and their beliefs, praise Mary. I'm sure the Pope will come talk with you directly and you better be prepared for his holiness, praise Mary (fumble with beads, fumble with beads). You, mister are going straight to hell. I will bet that you will not even be accepted in Purgatory, unless you have a time share condo and a full season lift ticket, praise Mary. So don't post that disgusting insult on the internet, praise Mary. Be very very afriad, I'm sure you know we have our hitmen, this is hitman El Patron:
FSON is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome