THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[CynicalBear]

And still no infallible evidence that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.

[xone]

Congrats on the retirement, but I’m far from a chaplain.

[CynicalBear]

>>Only that what we DO have is what God meant for us to have and it IS and REMAINS God's word.<<

That is evidently believed by only those who trust God enough to believe He kept His promise to preserve His word for "all generations".

[CynicalBear]

>>Catholic Doctrine maintains that Mary is the mother of Catholics.<<

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

[ronnietherocket3]

Thanks for at least including the fact that the 'woman' is, indeed, Israel.

If you read the entirety of what I wrote (which I have copied below), you will see I came to the conclusion that the woman is NOT Israel.

Earlier I posted the following:
The description that the woman will bear a son destined to rule all nations. I can think of two women who can claim this Israel and Mary. However, Rev 12 describes the devil as trying to sweep her away with the flood. The flood did not touch the woman. The flood could kill the woman by drowning her in sin (sin is the mechanism by which the devil cuts us off from God). However the flood (sin) does not touch the woman. It likely is not Israel as well read Hosea. However, thank you for the Immaculate Conception.

and:
The claim that Mary has other children does not disprove the Perpetual Virginity. It is the Catholic position that she is the Mother of all Christians. What would either disprove this woman is Mary or the Perpetual Virginity is a description that she bore the children from her womb. This passage only describes one child as being born of her womb.

At some point someone else on this thread posted:
Revelation 12 speaks of the constellation Bethula, and the 12 stars of the constellation Ariel beyond it, and the new moon at Bethula’s feet.

To which I responded:

First hit on a google search for the word Bethula turned up this page, which identifies Bethulah as a virgin, and we have a woman giving birth. How this is not Mary, I fail to understand.

Your response:

How this IS Mary; you've failed to prove.

When this thread started, I only ever saw Revelation 12 as evidence that Mary had been crowned Queen. Some Catholics used it to support the Assumption. In the process of arguing against the Assumption, I extracted the Immaculate Conception. In his rush to deny that it was Mary, ES made the claim the woman is Bethula (hebrew for virgin). This woman gives birth to a male child destined to rule all nations (i.e. Jesus). So know we have identified a Virgin giving birth to Jesus. This would appear to support the Perpetual Virginity (read one of the paragraphs at the top concerning the woman's other children). Please keep up the arguing, I may be able to pull co-rdemptrix out of this passage as well.

I had no real problem with a dual interpretation of this woman as Israel; however, I now see a reference to the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual sinlessness of the woman in question so I doubt it is Israel. My only problem with a triple interpretation including the Church was the description that the woman gives birth to a male child destined to rule all nations (i.e. Jesus).

The woman in Revelation is Isreal. It is she from which Jesus came. It is the remnant (the 144,000) of her seed who will flee and be persued by Satan during the last 3 1/2 years.

I see no reason to believe that her other children (no description of how they became her children) can only refer to the 144000 of Rev. 7 as the offspring here.

[ronnietherocket3]

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

There are repeated descriptions in the NT (Lk 1 for example) of Abraham being our father. Does this mean Sarah is our mother?

[daniel1212]

The entirety of this post starts off with the assumption that Sola Scriptura is true. I have seen no reason to believe that it is.

Which bare denial is no argument, and instead it fails to deal with the evidence that Scripture is abundantly evidenced that Scripture alone was the transcendent supreme infallible standard for obedience and for testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and thus assured, Word of God.

And that Rome cannot claim this, while you avoid affirming or denying the presuppositions behind the argument for sola ecclesia, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill Divine promises. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

[Iscool]

Throwing out snippets of scripture is exactly what sola scripturas do. They refuse to hold their claims to serious theological and historical debate and this is why no university theological department take fundamentalists seriously anymore than the way Muslims interpret the Quran.

Obviously you mean theological and historical debate about your religion...I'm not interested in what your religious philosophers say or think...I'm interested in what God says...

I can read and understand what God says...I don't waste my time worrying about what humanist philosophers debate with each other...And neither does God...

[CynicalBear]

Well done!

[Iscool]

I sure don’t. God bless.

I don't either...Need something to point me to Jesus??? Oh brother!!!

All that stuff...All that stuff in between them and Jesus??? They've got so much useless junk in between them and Jesus I'll bet they never get close to him, excluding that cracker...

I'd want to take home a handful of those crackers so I could pray to Jesus at home once in a while...Set 'em alongside my statues of Mary and Christopher and the rest of them...

[Iscool]

So the more reminders of Christ (about the home) the better, so you can choose His path and not one of sin.

Then why not have pictures and statues of Jesus and only Jesus around your house???

[BlueDragon]

I call that pretty bold talk.

Well, e-s, are you like one of the other fellas we have around here, and have one eye out for Mullah Omar? maybe while you're at it be a bit round about the middlin' parts?

As for you dsc

You maybe should have considered "..at Judge Parker's convenience..."

[CynicalBear]

>>Does this mean Sarah is our mother?<<

Does scripture say Sarah is our mother like it does say "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."?

[Iscool]

I was wondering about that. Billy Graham has led more people to Christ than anyone I have read about or listened to. Why do they hate him?

There was a preacher back in the 30s I believe, Billy Sunday...They say he led more than a million to Jesus...It's said that he led an entire town to Jesus...

[CynicalBear]

It’s really sad that Catholics think they have to go eat a cracker to get Jesus when true Christians have Him 24/7/365 dwelling within them.

[CynicalBear]

>>I believe Islam teaches that the original versions of scripture were lost or destroyed.<<

Apparently then Muslims, Catholics, and the followers of Michael Rood all have something in common. Of course Catholics even claim they serve the same god so we knew they had something in common with Muslims.

[Iscool]

Does this all include or exclude Jesus? However, the context of the quote is on distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception actually requires her to have a Savior; she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin at the moment of her conception. Is there somewhere in the specific context of Mary that it says she sinned?

Nope...The context is ALL...Jew, Gentile and Catholics...ALL means ALL...That includes Mary and her Mother...

Bible says NONE were/are sinless...And no where is there any indication of even a fable that Mary could have been sinless...

[metmom]

I was wondering about that. Billy Graham has led more people to Christ than anyone I have read about or listened to.

I'm guessing that it's because Catholic FReeprs know that non-Catholics don't support Jones or Koresh,or any or the other charlatans listed, but they DO support Billy Graham.

So if Billy Graham can be maligned with guilt by association, even though he NEVER espoused any of the heretical teachings of those cult leaders and political figures, then all the non-Catholic FReepers can also be maligned through guilt by association since they DO support Billy Graham.

It screams desperation so loudly that it drowns out everything else that's being said.

It also destroys the credibility of the person making the associations because attacking Billy Graham is not going to work in anyone's favor, even (I daresay) with a number of Catholics. He's simply too well known and too respected a man with too much integrity for anyone to believe that association.

On the contrary, the only person's character that is being compromised, is the person making that association.

Why do they hate him?

Because he preaches the truth, the gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

[CynicalBear]

>>On the contrary, the only person's character that is being compromised, is the person making that association.<<

That's a fact.

[Iscool]

NYer said they spoke Aramaic; I gave my reason for why the NT was written in Greek. How are we on different pages?

You said the most common language was Greek...NYer says the language spoken (most common) was Aramaic...