THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES [Ecumenical]

EWTN.com ^ | July-August 1996 issue of "Catholic Heritage". | Father Clifford Stevens

[Dan Middleton]

"But the fact that he wanted to remove ANY of them is telling, isn’t it?"

Actually, Catholic theologians of the time, including some of those who opposed Luther, expressed the same doubts about certain books.

"(He considered James to be “an epistle of straw”, for example.)"

This is always bandied about, but nobody ever cites the complete quote, which shows that Luther was comparing the character and tone of James to other books of Scripture and not making a judgment about it in and of itself.

"Unfortunately, that is the genesis of Protestant thought. Protestants claim to follow sola scriptura and sole fide, yet they have removed books from the canon of the Bible, and there is no basis in scripture for either of those doctrines."

Don't think we have time for the entire kernel of the Catholic-Protestant debate tonight. :-)

"(Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28.)"

He wasn't the first.

[Dan Middleton]

BTW, followup thought: your use of James as an example of Luther's "telling" desire to "remove" certain books doesn't make much sense when one considers that Luther actually DID include James as inspired Scripture in his German translation, whatever other comments he may have made about it. :-) If Luther was capriciously throwing out books willy-nilly because they didn't suit his beliefs, surely he would have given James the axe.

[Truth Defender]

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES (by)Father Clifford Stevens

Personally, I find the title's statement a little hard to believe since it does not come from "Apostolic Times": in reference to the latest post from you, entitled: " The Early Church Fathers on the Assumption [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus] Friday, August 15, 2008 10:16:23 PM · by Salvation. All of the quotes you bring forth are all too late to be from "Apostolic Time." None of the "church fathers" before your references ever reference an "assumption" of Mary, if they even mention her (which they don't). Truly, this dogma is a late addition to beliefs, and thusly is rejected by almost all Evangelical churches. What say you?

[MarkBsnr]

Google can be your friend, sir.

Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation are the starting point for the NT.

Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther are the OT cuts by Luther.

The NT cuts are merely for the personal gain of Luther; the OT cuts as well, but buttressed by the notion that the anti Christian Jewish council of Jamnia a half century after the Resurrection of Jesus had more say over Scripture than the Church did when they formalized the Canon.

[Dan Middleton]

"Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation are the starting point for the NT."

And all four were included as inspired Scripture in Luther's German translation.

"Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther are the OT cuts by Luther."

A reflection of the opinion he took on the long-standing issue of whether those books should be considered inspired.

BTW, it's all well and good for your Roman Catholics to excoriate us Protestants for cutting books out of the Bible, but I wonder what you have to say about the extra ones the Orthodox church includes that you don't?

Honestly, one would think that nobody had ever disagreed about the canon before old Luther came along. How silly. :-)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

MARY: MOTHER OF GOD OR MOTHER OF CHRIST?

"...the religious climate of the city of Ephesus with its temple of Artemis and the worship of this “Great Mother,” originally “the virgin goddess,” became conducive to replacing the pagan Artemis with the Christian Mary. It would be a way to merge paganism into Christianity and would facilitate the conversion of pagans into the new faith and religion..."

[Salvation]

Gospel writers refer to Christ as Son of Man AND Son of God.

Wasy enough to figure out.

[Salvation]

How do you think the Early Church Fathers received their information?

Holy Tradition, of course. These beliefs and tesaimonies were handed down (told) by the apostles. There are also references in the apocryphal writings that the Catholic Church did not approve for the Canon of the Bible.

[Truth Defender]

How do you think the Early Church Fathers received their information?

From their imaginations? From myths and reading into what was written; from stories told to enhance "spirituality"?

Holy Tradition, of course. These beliefs and tesaimonies were handed down (told) by the apostles. There are also references in the apocryphal writings that the Catholic Church did not approve for the Canon of the Bible.

There is no proof that the "assumption" or taking of Mary, body and "soul" to heaven, came from the Apostles. And why did these "aprocryphal" writings not get the church's blessing? Than answer, they were not inspired and contain things that did not go along with the other writings that were considered inspired and written by those who had first hand knowledge of Christ.