Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
Did you forget that sacred Scripture tells us what makes a Christian? Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them.". We cannot look upon a man's heart - only God can do that, but we only see the outward appearance. Whether or not a person continues in the faith is also an outward sign. The Apostle John experienced people who claimed to be believers but something happened to them. He said:
A sign of genuine faith is that the person will continue in the faith. That does NOT mean they lost their salvation along the way, but that their leaving demonstrated the faith they professed wasn't real. The book of Acts also speaks of such people:
Paul also mentioned the trouble he had with such people perverting the truth in his epistle to the Galatians:
That is why the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture to write it in the first place - so we, two thousand years later, can know the truth of the gospel and recognize a perversion of the gospel when we hear it. The authority we all have is God's word so that when anyone tries to turn us away from the truth, we will know it - no matter who they claim to be or what authority they claim they have.
However, in the end, it is ONLY God who sees every person's heart and He knows those that are His. All we can do is observe how a person lives and the truth he says he believes and either accept him as a brother/sister in Christ or correct him in his error. If he refuses correction, then we are told to take notice of him and not fellowship with him or take part in his sins. We have no authority to condemn a person to hell - that domain belongs to God alone.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/assumption-of-mary-in-earliest-sources.html
The conservative Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, when discussing the concept of Mary’s bodily assumption, acknowledged that “Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had.” (Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 208) Passages like Psalm 132:8 and Revelation 11:19 are sometimes cited in support of the doctrine, but the ark in both passages can reasonably be seen as some entity other than Mary, and neither passage would require a first century bodily assumption of Mary even if we did conclude that the ark is Mary. If Mary is spiritually in Heaven, her presence there wouldn’t prove that she was bodily assumed in the first century. Even if Psalm 132 and Revelation 11 were referring to Mary being bodily in Heaven, how would we know when it occurred? No Evangelical denies that Mary is currently spiritually in Heaven and that she’ll someday have a resurrected physical body. There isn’t any way to arrive at a first century bodily assumption of Mary as a probable conclusion to any passage of scripture.
A group of some of the leading Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:
“Furthermore, the notion of Mary’s assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: ‘The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.’” (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)
People often argue that we would know where Mary’s bodily remains are, and that early sources would have claimed more Marian relics, if she had remained in the grave, since she’s such an important person. But did the earliest Christians think Mary was as important as some people suggest? David Farmer comments:
“in the early church, as in Christ’s ministry, she [Mary] remained so much in the background that it is difficult to know where she lived or even where she died. Both Ephesus and Jerusalem claimed to be the place of her death, with the Eastern Fathers generally supporting Jerusalem.” (Oxford Dictionary Of Saints [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 336)
ionysius of Alexandria, a bishop of the third century, wrote:
“Chaeremon, who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife to the Arabian mountain and did not return. And though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them or their bodies.” (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 6:42:3)
This passage illustrates some points relevant to an assumption of Mary. First, it’s an illustration of the absurdity of the idea that Christians for hundreds of years would have known about a bodily assumption of Mary, yet would never have said anything about it in their extant writings, even when they’re commenting on Mary. If both Dionysius and Eusebius thought it significant that this bishop and his wife couldn’t be found, that their bodies were missing, don’t you think a bodily assumption of Mary would have seemed even more significant to them? Don’t you think it would be mentioned sometime in these early centuries?
Secondly, this passage from Dionysius illustrates the absurdity of concluding that a bodily assumption has occurred just because the whereabouts of a person’s body aren’t known. What if we were to conclude that Mary’s remains weren’t kept by the early Christians, that her tomb was empty, etc.? Would such evidence, by itself, prove that an assumption occurred? No. It would be consistent with an assumption, but it wouldn’t, by itself, prove an assumption.
The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were “assumed” and “translated”, but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5).
People claim to see references to an assumption of Mary in Biblical passages like Revelation 12. Yet, Hippolytus, Methodius, and other early fathers comment on such passages without saying anything of an assumption.
How likely is it that all of these writers, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary’s assumption, even though they knew of it? Though Roman Catholics give Mary so much attention and claim that Mary is God’s greatest creation, the apocryphal assumption of Moses receives more attention among the ante-Nicene fathers than Mary’s assumption (which isn’t mentioned at all).
...”Padre Pio was an extraordinary saint!”....
Only to those in his remote village...the authorities opposed him most of his life and denied his claims...in fact ordered him to refrain from anything other than “private” mass..and he was stripped of his priesthood...
It was only later these were returned to him as the Popes changed..and of course anything in the catholic church can change when that occurs.
Because of his “following” they determined to make merchandise of his remains...and of course that over the expressed will of his family who did not want his body to be ..”profaned”..nor displayed.
It would be easier for Catholics to get to heaven without the advice of Padre Pio...
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
If it were not for those pesky chapter-and-verse Prots, we could expect Rome would come up with more traditions of men being taught as doctrines.
ROTFLOL...I missed that before...LOL
If that same Jesus was on the ground, you’d have him sitting on Mary’s lap or under her feet...
Speaking of the topic of the thread. Catholics have obviously been duped on the assumption of Mary. No support from scripture or their early church fathers yet today it is central to Catholicism.
Which contextually is Not speaking about "discerning the body" as referring the elements consumed, but to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to "show," declare," "proclaim" the Lord's sacrificial death.
. Which is set in contrast to "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry. Thus the solution is 'Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:3334) As shown and explained more here .
Even the Catholic NAB notes states concerning v. 28 states:
The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). - http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11
What was that other verse you know??? Perhaps you should post that before you wear this one out...
When will you accept the whole Bible instead of ignoring that (and many other) verses?
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
Well it cannot be proved...as with so many other “assumptions” they present as facts to believe in.
Besides...nothing will move a catholic away from their ‘enthroning’ their mary....imagine what their buildings would look like if she was not central there any more? How the truth would change their entire Rosary and many of their prayers....and no parades with her draped with flowers...
she IS the foundation and almost the cornerstone of their faith and beliefs so if she goes and the priesthood goes, and the rituals go...there’s nothing left....but then all that’s sinking sand anyway.
I wonder...what does a discussion about who Jesus is ever go with catholics... remaining focused expressly on him with nothing else but who he is and about????
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Why do you deny the fact that the apostles said we received the same Spirit and that no distinction was made between us and them? Don’t you beleive what the Bible says?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.