Posted on 01/24/2007 8:41:04 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
Duet 13
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm
And, as with the Immaculate Conception, the earliest evidence that we have for the Assumption comes to us from the Eastern, non-Greek-speaking Church. Around 390 AD, we have the writings of St. Epiphanius of Salamis. Now, St. Epiphanius was a native of Palestine (so he would have been familiar with all the Sacred Traditions of the original Jewish Church in Jerusalem). Yet, in around 390, St. Epiphanius moved to the Greek island of Cyprus, where he was elected to be the Bishop of Salamis. Thus, around this time, we have this Palestinian bishop writing to his Greek flock about the end of Mary's earthly life. And, speaking very diplomatically, he writes:
"Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon's prophecy. There her glory is with the martyrs, and she through WHOM THE DIVINE LIGHT SHONE UPON THE WORLD IS IN THE PLACE OF BLISS WITH HER SACRED BODY. Or say she left this world without dying for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory." (Haer. lxxix, 11).
So, St. Ephiphanis is speaking to his Greek, Cypriot flock -- a flock which apparently had no eatablished Tradition about the Assumption. Yet, even so, Epiphanius mentions his own, Palestinian Tradition of the Assumption; and, while he does not force it upon the Greeks since, at this time, it was not a dogma and one did not have to accept it to be in the Church, he does present it to the Greek-speaking world. And he was most certainly not the only one, since the mere fact that he mentions the Assumption in passing shows that it was currently known to be an established belief -- an established theolegoumenon (theological opinion), even if it was not yet widely known to the Greek-speaking Church.
Excuse me for jumping in, but why didn't any of the Apostles, or any of the other writers of the Scriptures, write about this? Where is this written about?
Lol. You know better than that Al.
Translation. If the Protestants arent going to define "sola scriptura" the way we do, I aint playin.:-)
I've seen this movie somewhere before.
To become deeper in history is to become jewish.
To have FAITH in JESUS alone is to be a CHRISTIAN.
Ok. To become deeper in history is to be from the lost continent of Atlantis. That was easy. :-)
Note the use of the word "apostolic"; meaning what was established by the original apostles (as described in scripture) not whatever church leaders of the future might initiate on their own whims or misreading of scripture. Paul wasn't offering a blank check.
My challenge to the anti-sola scriptura writers is to provide any scriptural support the notion of authoritative tradition as evolving. Of course, I realize that your self-reinforcing position doesn't recognize any burden to do so.
Additionally, the letters of Peter and James were written before the Gospels, so one has to question why, if they didn't include an account of the Assumption, they didn't include accounts of the Ascension of Jesus, either. Economy of teaching, perhaps, but the fact that the eye witnesses to the Ascension did not give account of the event makes credible that they would not give account of the Assumption, either.
"WHY WOULD GOD DEVISE A THEOLOGY THAT HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT FOR FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS?"
Let me give you six verses that can answer the question.
Gen. 15:16, "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
For 1500 years (Psalms 106:15) "And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul."
For 1500 years (Jhn 1:5) "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
During that 1500 years (Acts 14:16-17) "Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
2Pe 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Finally, after 1500 years the truth that salvation is by grace through faith alone was again revealed (Gal. 4:4) "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"
And the best part is that the "Church" can make up anything they want, put any sort of date upon it, call it Tradition, Magisterate, Ex Cathedra, or some such pompous name. Then they can propagate it any which way they please because they have declared that they alone are God's merchants of truth.
Their declining numbers indicate that not as many people are buying their wares any more.
The swipe at Luther is unjustified. According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent
It should also be noted that what Pope Damasus (and some other Roman bishops in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries) declared in part canonical, Trent declared uncanonical, proving that Pope Damasus and the Decretum Gelasianum was not definitive as you portray it.
Cordially,
So the assmuption of Mary is based upon the assumption of some Patriach in Jerusalem that the Apostles assumed that because the place where Mary was assumed to have been buried was assumed to be empty, that they therefore assumed that she had been assumed into heaven.
IOW the Emporer Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem, "Hey where are Mary's bones, that we might bow before them and pray to her through them and build a magnificent shrine to her bones?" and the Patriarch, at a loss for words, told him this fantastic fairy tale, which in 1950 or so was proclaimed by some obsure infallible Pope to have therefore been revealed by God.
OK thanks for your source.
So the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is out, then? What about the hypostatic union?
Paul wasn't offering a blank check.
Paul doesn't have the power to offer a blank check. The only 'blank check' is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, explicitly promised by Christ and descended upon the Church on Pentecost Sunday.
My challenge to the anti-sola scriptura writers is to provide any scriptural support the notion of authoritative tradition as evolving.
Christ, Himself, is proof of that. The ultimate evolution of Tradition:
"Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Christianity is the complete evolution of Judaic tradition. Jesus made clear that He Himself was the manifestation of this evolution.
To be fair, the poster did include a link to that site as well as the original author's name.
Even better, anyone can come along and say exactly what you did since none of us are actual eye witnesses. Wasn't that easy? Seems the burden of proof is to reprove 2000 years of accepted teaching, not to develop some new wrinkle that makes sense to the warped sensibilities of 21st century humanity.
Their declining numbers indicate that not as many people are buying their wares any more.
Yeah, there's only a billion of us across the world.
I have asked that questions on a number of threads a number of times. I have yet to receive a suitable response, because if a person is intellectually honest they realize that there is no response.
The only real response I have ever received was from one poster who opined that had he lived in medieval Europe, he would have made certain that his family owned one, even if they had to sacrifice. The reality is that the "average" person in medieval Europe lived in poverty and would not earn enough money in their lifetime to purchase a Bible. And aside from this, even if they could afford a Bible, it was not as if you could go down the street to the neighborhood bookstore and buy one, they were hand inscribed and it took years to produce a single volume. But even if a person had the money (and remember that in those days you couldn't just borrow the money) and the time to wait (which is a negligible proposition because the average adult who had amassed the money to purchase a Bible wouldn't still be alive by the time his order was complete -- if a king or nobleman put in an order, your's would get "bumped") the fact still remains that the person in question would probably be illiterate.
In short, to devise a plan of Salvation that is so unattainable would be totally inconsistent with God's Omnipotence and Love.
He linked the site and the author's name. It's at the very beginning of the post. Sheesh. What was that you said?
What you posted does not make enough sense to respond to.
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.