Posted on 10/08/2007 6:08:42 AM PDT by NYer
What other source is not subject to the political and social pressures of the day? All men are fallible, errors can be made in oral transmission of information. Information written down is very hard to change, especially if that written information is wide spread.
That in NO way by ANY even outrageous extreme convoluted fantasy even BEGINS to negate the SCRIPTURAL FACT AND PRINCIPLE that WHEN something is the least bit important in Scripture, God uses AT LEAST SEVERAL mentions in different places in Scripture with more than sufficient clarity.
Grasping at vain Humpty Dumpty/Monopoly Money theology very phoney straws made of air gel for remotely important spiritual dogma is the depths of deplorable, imho.
We've already established that your dogma about the Assumption of Mary is based on one word, so the real strength of this position lies with your church fathers. How do you know they got it right?
Your church fathers were fallible humans. They came after the fact. We really don't know if the few that actually knew the Apostles really understood what was being taught. None of their writings have ever been treated as inerrant.
OF COURSE!!! IT MEANS THAT! And all their descendents are currently writing books . . . all with a variation on the title . . . what was it now . . . AH YES . . . their titles are variations on:
THE EPHESUS CODE [subtitle:] 1,001 Sinless Lives, Ascensions, Aparitions, Assumptions and Daily Renewed Virginities.
with special forward about the meaning of "is" in the Ephesus Code by none other than Mary herself via special email through the Roman magisterical's Star Gate . . . delivered the last step by a golden dove that just happened to spend a little too much time stopping by a Jesuit sidewalk cafe and sampling too many dregs of wine they were taste testing for Communion use. So, please excuse if some versions have more than slightly tipsy theology from the pervasive infection by the tipsy dove regarding the meaning of "is." It's really not Mary's fault. The dove did it.
Has the RC edifice decided to become a multi-national humor factory?
Amen Brother!
I just don't see the wisdom in believing dogmas based on one word, which clearly should be interpreted differently. If there is no emphasis for this belief found in the inerrant writings of the Apostolic Era why trust sources that came later? When it is not supported by Scripture leave it alone.
ROFLOL.
Illustrating absurdity with absurdity.
We really shouldn't be too tough on our RC posters. It is very difficult to support these dogmas, without quoting church fathers. IOW, by using Scripture alone. I give them credit for hanging in there and trying.
I respect their zeal a great deal.
Nice to see some sort of Christians giving the Jihadi’s competition in the zeal department.
However . . . we see where mis-placed zeal gets folks . . .
to the same deadly dead-ends that destructive dogma doggedly delivers to.
And, these folks hereon are quite bright. HOWEVER, going against the historical record using the silly gropings of the magicsterical is not exactly the soundest route toward kosher doctrine. And, were the scales from the eyes removed, I suspect most of them would see the truth quite readily. Prayer is probably the only way to facilitate that.
However, in behalf of the lurkers, some of us impertinent ones will soldier on . . .
with
the silly illustrating the silly; absurdity illustrating absurdity . . . outrageous illustrating the outrageous and the like.
Thx.
Ahhhhhhh, so those on the side of the historical record and Biblical accuracy are now tasked by the magicsterical with proving the negative? LOL. ROTFLOL! GTTM!
The evidence from the Church Fathers and from Scripture also fails to show that Mary's toenails weren't painted in neon colors by angelic mice at 02:00 every morning while she slept.
SO . . . WHEN can we expect the new dogma of THE HOLY MICE PAINTED RAINBOW TOENAILS OF MARY to be published? Will it be first published on the net or by gold illuminated vellum missives from the hollowed Humpty Dumpty halls of the ensconsed magicsterical bodily in Rome? Will the Pope read it from an open window after releasing a dozen doves or after releasing a dozen holy white mice?
Enquiring snickerers would like to know.
They won't be the ones to stand against Islam, Europe is dying right before our eyes. The birth rates are below static levels and the gap is being filled by the migrants from the south who are reproducing at more than twice the rate as the Christians. There is also a strain of thought within the RCC that Mary will serve as a bridge between them and Islam.
I believe the thinking goes, Mary appeared at Fatima, Mohamed's daughter was named Fatima and muslims hold Mary in high regard. I don't believe it. I think it is more likely that they will suffer under the boot of Islam for a long time, just like the EO had to.
Interesting.
Perhaps.
But I think the global world government of the end times will trump such possibilities with the prophecied horrors all over the planet.
Islam may well be a route to the one world government worshipping the world ruler.
LOLOL. Exactly!
The magisterium at the Vatican Humpty Dumpty School of Theology are able to make words like "grace" mean so many different things. You see, if their words had fixed meanings, then their sentences would have fixed meanings, and their paragraphs, etc. But the Vatican's Humpty Dumpty magisterium can't allow that because then they would no longer be able to sit on the wall and be masters of their words and all who hear them. They would instead be bound by their words. It is a matter of who is to be master -- their words or them -- that's all.
Not only do they fragment the meaning of grace out of all recognition, but they mistakenly combine the meanings of sanctification and justification into one action when the two works represent two different actions.
We have been justified once for all time by the single work of Christ on the cross, and thus we are sanctified daily by the indwelling Holy Spirit, a gift from God to His people.
The magisterium would have us believe they are one and the same thing -- that our sanctifying good works are part of our justification when in truth, our sanctification is the result of our justification.
As has become increasingly obvious, if we get justification wrong, we've misunderstood the most important part of our salvation -- by Christ alone.
Ahhhhhhh, so those on the side of the historical record and Biblical accuracy are now tasked by the magicsterical with proving the negative? LOL.
IIRC, he loses who invokes the "you have no evidence it's not true" rebuttal. 8~)
No one will argue that certitude regarding the Assumption of Mary is not to be found in the patristic evidence. However, the subject was discussed by some of the Fathers, with various opinions. For example, Epiphanius (c. 377), questioning the possibilities of Mary's end, states: "...or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires, for her end no one knows" (Panarion, 78, 23). Augustine says Mary died, whereas Ambrose says he is not sure. The mere fact that the demise of Mary was even being discussed, which was not that case of any other New Testament person, shows that, among the Fathers, something was different about Mary.
John Damascene in the seventh century (Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary) seems to give clear evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. John Damascene wrote during the era of Byzantine liturgy. Also during this time is St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem (d. 634), who teach that Mary was assumed into heaven. Also, in the Sacramentary of Adrian I sent to Charlemagne, Mary's Assumption is affirmed. Prior to these witnesses, Theoteknos, Bishop of Livias in Palestine, from the sixth century, affirmed the Assumption of Mary in four separate instances.
Epiphanius' fourth century question about Mary's demise was still unanswered in the 20th century. As the centuries pass, there is a constant question, one that will not go away, of whether: (a) Mary died, and (b) Mary was assumed into heaven, with no dogmatic answer to either. The question did not cease up until 1950. At this time, it became a consensus that Mary was indeed assumed into heaven. Finally, in the late 1940's, Pius XII wrote to all the bishops of the world and asked them their opinion. 99% wrote back and said they believed that Mary was Assumed into Heaven. Here is a perfect example of how the Church's bishops, in union with the Pope, fulfill the statement in Matthew 18:18 concerning their prerogative to bind and loose.
1 Timothy 3:15 says "the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth," which is, of course, a timeless truth. The dogma is the arbitrary result of the Church's authority, not the result of the preponderance of the scriptural and patristic evidence. Since Scripture is not the final authority, the Church wins.
or different about them???
All these people you cite are father-come-latelies. What would they know about anything that happened 400 years earlier without documentation??? How is it this great assumption escaped the pens of all the apostles, first-second-third-fourth century writers??? Not one word from anyone until someone makes it up out of whole cloth in the 5th century adn then provides no evidence for it at all. It's a tall tale like all the others without even one witness or one shred of evidence???
How do people fall for this nonsense??? Oh ... I forgot ... Rome' imagination has spoken ... end of discussion.
Probably true.
But since when did I ever play by those rules! LOL.
Among the fathers, something was different about Mary?
= = =
Welllll doh.
She was a MOTHER FIGURE of some status in that era—at least in the minds of many Christians, evidently—and contrary to Scripture . . .
And lot of muddle headed men—those who were Mamma’s boys and those who were berift of Mamma’s tender nurturing graces . . . can easily be psychologically quite obsessively addicted to the whoe mother archetypal schstick. And, it’s all the worse if said aging men have in the least treated their mothers less than ideally—and most naughty little boys have at one time or another.
Shoot, all kinds of fantastical nonsense evolved over Princess Diana . . . and probably Mother Angelica . . . . and Mother Theresa . . . Given a few centuries, claim might be made about THEIR bodily ascensions, sinless births and a whole raft of other nonsense.
Jurry-rigging a whole edifice of phoney doctrines is not really rocket science—it’s more sociology and political science and probably no small amount of demonology.
Rome’ imagination has spoken ... end of discussion.
= = =
INDEED.
Perhaps a bit more accurately:
ROME’S
—power mongering;
—authoritarianism;
—political might;
—arrogance;
—vain imaginings;
—doctrines of demons;
—private interpretations;
—!!!!TRADITIONS!!!!;
—delusional imaginings;
—averice, greed;
—Machiavellian manipulativeness;
—Obsessive CONTROL FREAKISHNESS;
— . . .
has spoken, bow and submit or off with your head!
Mary was a sinner. She was conceived in sin by way of her father who transfered Original Sin to her by way of his seed. Christ was not conceived by way of Joseph’s seed and so escaped Original Sin. Mary was Full of Grace...meaning the spirit of God...that is scriptural and I do not have to tap dance around anything or reinvent and bend scripture to arrive there.
Oh, I've no doubt about that. No doubt at all.
And that's how the tiger got its stripes.
I do give you credit for stating that scripture really doesn't matter when it comes to RC doctrine. You'll probably deny it and give us the 3-legged stool story, but when push comes to shove, it's the scriptures that get shoved aside. Period. The end. Finis.
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.